Han wrote:
I am not mocking God, or you. As an individual, I believe that each of
us should be free to believe or not believe what we want to believe, or
are used to believe.

I was referring to posters who have made posts that openly and plainly
were doing so.

But in my case that means that I expect the same
kind of respect from you.

I think respect is a hard word in this case. I do not respect other
religions in that I do not equate them to be True (if I did - or you, or
anyone else did, then why not just believe what they believe and be at
peace). But I do recognize that I have no right to try to force others
to believe what I believe. I am always willing to try to help others see
the Truth (or at least what I have been given to understand of it) but I
do not force others to listen. That is as much as I can do.

I have no idea whether or not there is a God,
it doesn't matter to me. If there is a God, I hope that he or she will
just(ly) look at me and my deeds and judge whether I am or have been a
good person. Whatever that judgment means. If there is no God, than I
still believe that I should act responsibly and with compassion as well
as righteousness.

But how would you know what is compassion or righteous? Without rules
set by God's Word those terms are just whatever we feel like today. As
we have seen in the human past some have felt it was perfectly righteous
to kill others (Hitler was religious - "third reich" look it up). ** I
am not linking you with him **

I do not wish to force my view on you, I don't want to
accept your view, but neither view should disrespect the other.


Agreed - with disrespect meaning I am not out to force you to change. I
*want* you to change to believe what I know (though as a human I have
hard times) is the Truth but I have no right to try to force you, and I
must still be willing to show Love and provide any help I can when you
need it.

--
Michael Joel

parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols

Michael Joel wrote:

Agreed - with disrespect meaning I am not out to force you to change. I
*want* you to change to believe what I know (though as a human I have
hard times) is the Truth but I have no right to try to force you, and I
must still be willing to show Love and provide any help I can when you
need it.


Still waiting on the price of a gallon of gasoline, preferably at Arco!
Please don't make me change threads....

(LOL), Bill

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:13:44 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:58:40 -0500, Michael Joel
Agreed. See 1 Corinthians 1:18-31

That's the problem with people (like you) who at any time and any
place don't hesitate to lecture others on their interpretation of god.

This is a woodworking group. So unless you're prepared to talk about
Jesus' life as a carpenter and present examples of some of the
woodworking that he did, your lecturing and pointed biblical
corrections are sorely out of place.
As is ALL political discussion - liberal vs conservative, republican
vs democrat, left vs right, etc - as well as all economics not
directly related to the cost of wood, supplies, or woodworking tools.

And PARTICULARLY off topic and sorely out of place is any criticism of
your current commander in chief.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:08:24 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:53:44 -0500, Michael Joel
I have seen this problem in a number of groups/forums and it never
ceases to amaze (and extremely sadden) me how little people even care
for the topic or view. It really does prove out 2 Peter 3:3-4.

People like you use your religion to lecture and refuse to consider
any other viewpoint. All the other discussions here are just opinions
and generally accepted as being so. People like you flaunt your belief
system as being undeniable and completely cast out any other opinion.

You're not here to discuss religion and woodworking. You're here to
discuss your religion only. THAT'S why you and what you have to say
will put you into the category of Pariah.


Dave - and others. Those who take offense at any hint of religion are
much more narrow minded and opinionated than those who filter all of
their observations through their religious life view.

Nowhere did Michael say anything offensive - - to anyone . His
observations are no more off topic (and perhaps more on topic) than
many others. He's not holding a knife to your throat saying you need
to believe as he does. If you feel uncomfortable because of what he
says, mabee you need to look at yourself and find out why.

Your constitution and the 1st ammendment went to GREAT lengths to make
sue that NO test of religion could be applied to anyone applying for a
federal position. That is ALL the "separation of church and state" was
about. To make sure no religion, or opponent thereto, could "fix" it
that only those of their stripe could run the country.

Freedom OF religion is part of an American's "inalienable rights".
Freedom "from" religion is not mentioned - but you are free to "not"
believe as much as to believe.

You are not free to criticise those who do on the basis of their
belief.

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:20:37 -0800, "CW" wrote:



"Michael Joel" wrote in message
om...

Dave wrote:

On Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:58:40 -0500, Michael Joel
Agreed. See 1 Corinthians 1:18-31


That's the problem with people (like you) who at any time and any
place don't hesitate to lecture others on their interpretation of god.

This is a woodworking group. So unless you're prepared to talk about
Jesus' life as a carpenter and present examples of some of the
woodworking that he did, your lecturing and pointed biblical
corrections are sorely out of place.

Odd. Discussions of:
Fracking, Ecosystems, Modern Education, Credit Cards, Plumbing, Rag
colors, more Plumbing, Jokes, more Jokes, more Jokes............

Are fine for discussion in a woodworking newsgroup - but not religion.
Sounds like phobia to me.

Lets see. Everyone was discussing *why* they believed the educational
system was in the state it is (and society in general being spoken of).
I put in my belief of the root of the problem (prefacing it with my
personal experience in public school - which appears more recent than
most here and I thought therefore worth sharing). But because I linked
the problems with a lack of knowledge of God (I don't play games of
whose God - there is only One) - this belief is unacceptable.

I have seen this problem in a number of groups/forums and it never
ceases to amaze (and extremely sadden) me how little people even care
for the topic or view. It really does prove out 2 Peter 3:3-4.

Did I attack anyone else for their belief of the root of the problems
discussed? Who lectured who? I shared - others mocked and lectured. If
you want to judge me - I am fine with that - but lets be just in it at
least. If your really see something I did wrong then share it - if I was
wrong I will apologize.
================================================= ===================
You damn well know the problem. I'm sure people have been explaining it to
you for years. Plonk, twit.


Another narrow minded anti theist.
Note - I am not saying you are crazy - But you have not responded
reasonably to his question. ANd he has offered to appologize for
anything he said that you could identify as being wrong or offensive.

In return, you are offensive. And you will NEVER appologize -
sincerely or not.

Which makes you, surely, no better than him - at the very best.

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:19 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:00:21 -0500, Michael Joel
wrote:

So I end the post (I know some people will think I'm getting off the
soap box)

Your interpretation of science as religion shows a lack of
understanding. Me I have no faith in humankinds ability to percieve an
omnipotent entity and what that entity intended or intends.

Remember the answer to life and everything.
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

in 1521856 20120301 040454 wrote:

Freedom OF religion is part of an American's "inalienable rights".
Freedom "from" religion is not mentioned - but you are free to "not"
believe as much as to believe.

I seem to have stumbled into rec.usa.woodworking.

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:45:01 -0500, wrote:
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

But, that's exactly what religion is. Religion is a concept created by
man that lets him deal with the inexplicable. One might also say that
religion is a code of conduct created by man that's not much different
than the laws enacted by any government.

However you might want to describe it, men created religion as a means
to dictate the actions of others of their species. In our society
anyway, choice of which religion to follow is entirely optional. That
is why I tend to react unfavorably when people try to publicly inject
religion into my presence. I take it as someone trying to control me
when they have no right to do so.

In this example at least, I understand why Jack is so vehemently
against the actions of Gass and SawStop.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 07:37:45 GMT, Bob Martin
Freedom OF religion is part of an American's "inalienable rights".
Freedom "from" religion is not mentioned - but you are free to "not"
believe as much as to believe.

I seem to have stumbled into rec.usa.woodworking.

Unavoidable result of combining some really intelligent people with
some really stupid ones and everybody in between.

Dave wrote:


But, that's exactly what religion is. Religion is a concept created by
man that lets him deal with the inexplicable. One might also say that
religion is a code of conduct created by man that's not much different
than the laws enacted by any government.

Well... that cannot be stated with such confidence Dave. It may indeed make
sense to you, that man created religion to deal with the inexplicable, but
that's as impossible to prove as the existence of God. FTR - Michael Joel
has not argued any points of religion. He has argued points of his faith,
but that's a different thing.


However you might want to describe it, men created religion as a means
to dictate the actions of others of their species.

That's why it is important to distinguish between religion and faith.

In our society
anyway, choice of which religion to follow is entirely optional. That
is why I tend to react unfavorably when people try to publicly inject
religion into my presence. I take it as someone trying to control me
when they have no right to do so.


Your choice. But in fairness, those who outspokenly express their
disbelief, or refer to another's faith with inflamatory phrases that include
the word "myth" should invoke the same ire within you - right? Does your
philosophy allow for a fellow like Michael Joel to even state what his
beliefs are - even if that is not in an effort to evangelize? Surely you
would not want to control him by placing a prohibition on him for that...

--

-Mike-

Michael Joel wrote in
m:

Han wrote:
I am not mocking God, or you. As an individual, I believe that each
of us should be free to believe or not believe what we want to
believe, or are used to believe.

I was referring to posters who have made posts that openly and plainly
were doing so.

I realize that, I just wanted to make my position clear(er).

But in my case that means that I expect the same
kind of respect from you.

I think respect is a hard word in this case. I do not respect other
religions in that I do not equate them to be True (if I did - or you,
or anyone else did, then why not just believe what they believe and be
at peace). But I do recognize that I have no right to try to force
others to believe what I believe. I am always willing to try to help
others see the Truth (or at least what I have been given to understand
of it) but I do not force others to listen. That is as much as I can
do.

This is an important point. For yourself, you may claim that you have
found the truth. But it is my opinion (emphasize my) that anyone can
claim that, no matter what he or she believes. Otherwise God would not
have allowed so very many different religions. That implies that others
may have found truth for themselves in ways different from you. See
further down.

I have no idea whether or not there is a God,
it doesn't matter to me. If there is a God, I hope that he or she
will just(ly) look at me and my deeds and judge whether I am or have
been a good person. Whatever that judgment means. If there is no
God, than I still believe that I should act responsibly and with
compassion as well as righteousness.

But how would you know what is compassion or righteous? Without rules
set by God's Word those terms are just whatever we feel like today. As
we have seen in the human past some have felt it was perfectly
righteous to kill others (Hitler was religious - "third reich" look it
up). ** I am not linking you with him **

I don't know absolute truths. But I am (for instance) against killing
others (with few exceptions, such as 1 person killing another as proven
with absolute certainty, and under very aggravating circumstances). And
I am glad for your exception.

I do not wish to force my view on you, I don't want to
accept your view, but neither view should disrespect the other.


Agreed - with disrespect meaning I am not out to force you to change.
I *want* you to change to believe what I know (though as a human I
have hard times) is the Truth but I have no right to try to force you,
and I must still be willing to show Love and provide any help I can
when you need it.

When I am asking (like this) for discussion, I am willing to discuss, to
ask me when I am not ready to discuss, I will "hang up".

But I'd very much like you to admit that others might have found truth in
circumstances and under religions different from you, since there could
very well be universal human values that everyone could and should strive
for.

Sorry, got to go to the gym now.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

wrote in :

And PARTICULARLY off topic and sorely out of place is any criticism of
your current commander in chief.

Why is that "sorely out of place" but criticism of the previous C-in-C wasn't?

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:45:01 -0500, clare wrote:

The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack of
understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

And with that one sentence you've shown how much you do not understand.
You denigrate scientific theories which, as have been pointed out to you
and others time and again, result from a great deal of testing to see if
they hold up. Then you and Michael base your arguments on a book that
has nothing to support its claim to be the "Truth" but your belief.

BTW, have either of you read the bible books that were thrown out by
Jerome because they didn't agree with his beliefs? Or the ones Luther
threw out because they disagreed with his? Or the one Joseph Smith
added? How about the version edited by Thomas Jefferson? Amazing how
the "revealed Truth" changes over time, isn't it?

I wonder why I bother with these threads but then I remember that if just
one person reads this and questions his beliefs because of it, whatever
the conclusion he comes to at least I've encouraged him to think about
them.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Larry Blanchard wrote:
And with that one sentence you've shown how much you do not understand.
You denigrate scientific theories which, as have been pointed out to you
and others time and again, result from a great deal of testing to see if
they hold up. Then you and Michael base your arguments on a book that
has nothing to support its claim to be the "Truth" but your belief.

Please re-read your words "scientific theories"... and ..."nothing to
support its claim"..."but your belief".

Incorrect. If your require physical evidence - there have been countless
discoveries that have proven things in ancient times took place just as
described in God's Word. May I point out that these are discovered after
years of having to hear scientists and others telling us no such thing
ever existed or happened - simple example: King David. Countless times
we were told no such person existed, and if he did (which is an obvious
give away about the speaker's knowledge), he was simple a leader of a
barbaric clan. Facts have proven Israel was indeed an advanced culture
ruled by the Laws given as described in God's Word. There are plenty of
other examples. As for the world around us they all proved out God's
Laws every time.

I dare say there is more physical evidence that people can touch to back
up God's Word than scientists can actually provide. None of this even
matters though because Faith is the evidence of things hoped for -.
Hebrews 11:1 - and why would someone hope for something they can see -
Romans 8:24.
I don't base my Faith on whether I can touch or see something.

BTW, have either of you read the bible books that were thrown out by
Jerome because they didn't agree with his beliefs? Or the ones Luther
threw out because they disagreed with his? Or the one Joseph Smith
added? How about the version edited by Thomas Jefferson? Amazing how
the "revealed Truth" changes over time, isn't it?


Actually that is misleading as well. First we must assume God isn't in
control of keeping His Word for a Witness. I suggest you read the Old
Testament - it has many, many examples of sinful men doing things that
they thought were in their power, but was actually being used by God to
bring about the results He had already planned.

Your words are as logical as the scientific method though. By you simply
stating It was changed/added to - means you know about those changes.

I can go into a bunch of "intellectual" talk about how The Bible as a
book came to be (through man's view) but what is the use? It all comes
down to Faith - It is just silliness to those who don't believe.

1 Corinthians 1:20-25
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this
age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [21] For since in
the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God,
God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to
save those who believe. [22] For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks
search for wisdom; [23] but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a
stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, [24] but to those who are
the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom
of God. [25] Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the
weakness of God is stronger than men.

I wonder why I bother with these threads but then I remember that if just
one person reads this and questions his beliefs because of it, whatever
the conclusion he comes to at least I've encouraged him to think about
them.


Same here. You see it is a war. Not a physically violent war (since if I
did that I would be casting off the Truth). But it is a war between
light and darkness. I am afraid no matter how stupid and ignorant I may
be (I make no argument against it) light will win. You can't stop it. It
is already set and will happen. Revelation 13:10

--
Michael Joel

parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:45:01 -0500, clare wrote:

The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

And with that one sentence you've shown how much you do not
understand. You denigrate scientific theories which, as have been
pointed out to you and others time and again, result from a great
deal of testing to see if they hold up. Then you and Michael base
your arguments on a book that has nothing to support its claim to be
the "Truth" but your belief.


I might have missed it because I stay a bit away from these threads, but I
did not see where scientific theory had been denegraded. What I did catch,
was an argument that suggested that too much faith - or trust, if you will,
can be placed in things that are labeled as scientific. Since all of this
stuff involves people and not pure truth as administered by God, or pure
science as principles dictate, there is room, and plenty of room for error
on both sides. Neither side can lay a claim to an absolutely uncorrupted
methodology or knowledge. In the end - ya lays yer money down and ya takes
yer chances...


BTW, have either of you read the bible books that were thrown out by
Jerome because they didn't agree with his beliefs? Or the ones Luther
threw out because they disagreed with his? Or the one Joseph Smith
added? How about the version edited by Thomas Jefferson? Amazing how
the "revealed Truth" changes over time, isn't it?


I am a believer in the Bible and I have a faith in God that I try to let
steer my otherwise not-so-godly personality. That said... these are
extremely valid and valuable points, worthy of consideration. Having gone
through a few phases in life and realized that the fervor of my youth was
replaced by the wisdom of my age, I've simply come to the point of admiting
that the more I know the more I don't know.

FWIW - I figure that if there is a God (as I believe there is...), and he's
so doggoned big and powerful, and so smart, and so capable, and so perfect
(etc., etc., etc...), then there is now way on God's green earth that I am
going to be able to understand the vastness of those qualities - in other
words... I cannot understand him enough to make a statement that "this is
the truth..." with any degree of absolute conviction. These days I look at
those things in a more relative sense. I believe what has been revealed to
me, what I am currently able to understand, and I don't pretend to put
boundries on such a powerful being by restricting him to what I can
understand at the time. I've just seen too many growth adventures in my
life (both in the realm of faith and in the realm of "worldly things"), to
presume that I'm that freakin' smart anymore. You may not be able to teach
old dogs new tricks, but you can show them something different about the old
tricks.

I wonder why I bother with these threads but then I remember that if
just one person reads this and questions his beliefs because of it,
whatever the conclusion he comes to at least I've encouraged him to
think about them.

I'm not big on questioning beliefs. I'm big on growth and awareness. But -
that's my schtick. I believe that having beliefs is more valuable than
questioning beliefs - and I'm a rebel of sorts. Why should a person
question their faith? Faith is a good thing. I'm more concerned for blind
acceptance of things - sort of the open head, pour in thoughts concept.
Whether one believes that our brain comes from God or not, I do believe we
have the obligation to examine things, using that brain. One either side of
the arugment. Regardless of whether we are talking about faith, science, or
the positions in the kamasutra, today's knowledge is a steppingstone to
tomorrow's increased understandings. I just don't try to fool myself into
believing that I have it all figured out.

--

-Mike-

wrote in news:njvtk7dmej4vah27a052fpk50af929gt7j@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:19 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:00:21 -0500, Michael Joel
wrote:

So I end the post (I know some people will think I'm getting off the
soap box)

Your interpretation of science as religion shows a lack of
understanding. Me I have no faith in humankinds ability to percieve an
omnipotent entity and what that entity intended or intends.

Remember the answer to life and everything.
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

I can't agree with the last statement of Clare's. Science tries to
explain things from the perspective of proven truisms. 1+1=2 etc. No
faith, no believe, no religion is involved. It goes from there and gets
then at the edge of belief (not faith, not religion) when we try to use
science to explain where we came from. Using the proven theory of
evolution, using math, physics and chemistry, including thermodynamics
and quantum mechanics. As discussed before, hypotheses try to formulate
a theory (based on observed or postulated observable facts) before it is
proven, while a theory is supposed to be fully proven.

There are still many things we do not (fully) understand. That follows
the "law" that says if a theory is proven finally, there should be more
questions coming out of that work than there were before the theory was
proven.

I agree that laws may have originated from religious beliefs, but almost
all civilizations have a core set of identical laws that are similar to
the US Constitution as well as the 10 commandments. Maybe they could be
explained evolutionarily as promoting (or donditional for) the survival
of the fittest ... A sort of "convergent" evolution, a well-validated
concept.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/29/2012 3:04 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:17:08 -0600, Leon wrote:

If there is no God, where did everything that surrounds you come
from? There must have been a creator, obviously.

Leon, I don't know how much you know about quantum physics. I don't
know a lot, but I do know that the line between "exists" and "does
not exist" is getting very fuzzy. I also know that depending on our
senses to tell us how the universe works gives false results. And
finally, it's a long way from "was the universe created" to "is this
version of the creator the correct one".

I recently saw a hypothesis that said that not only could the
universe have been created from nothing, but that nothing may have
been a necessary condition for it to be created. That one is curious
enough that I'll have to investigate it when I have time :-).

If you've got some scientific background, and an hour to spare, you
might find this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo


Yeah, I have heard a bit about that. I seems as though they don't
know something but will come up a way to prove that something exists
or does not exist with no way to prove the results.

I don't have all the knowledge I should to fully follow Krauss, but
listening to that hour of very funny commentary on his and others' work,
I sort of get it.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Michael Joel wrote:
Larry Blanchard wrote:


Incorrect. If your require physical evidence - there have been
countless discoveries that have proven things in ancient times took
place just as described in God's Word. May I point out that these are
discovered after years of having to hear scientists and others
telling us no such thing ever existed or happened - simple example:
King David. Countless times we were told no such person existed, and
if he did (which is an obvious give away about the speaker's
knowledge), he was simple a leader of a barbaric clan. Facts have
proven Israel was indeed an advanced culture ruled by the Laws given
as described in God's Word. There are plenty of other examples. As
for the world around us they all proved out God's Laws every time.


To be fair Michael, I am a person of faith, and I have heard similar claims
that try to state that "science" attempted to deny this or that. I
generally heard those things in churches. In reality, I seldom found real
science to be making those statements. I have seen common people like
ourselves, misquoting what science was saying, and trying to speak with
authority that they did not have, but I just did not hear science make those
proclamations. I have heard scientists of different disciplines propose
ideas that were contrary to what the Bible stated, but even those were
generally not as an outright denial or confrontation. There are some big
difference such as the age of the earth as viewed by science and as proposed
by young earth creationists. That's an entirely different matter. There
was some really bad science - or attempts at sounding scientific, being
thrown around by those folks 15 years ago.

I dare say there is more physical evidence that people can touch to
back up God's Word than scientists can actually provide. None of this
even matters though because Faith is the evidence of things hoped for
-. Hebrews 11:1 - and why would someone hope for something they can
see - Romans 8:24.
I don't base my Faith on whether I can touch or see something.


Yet Thomas...



Actually that is misleading as well. First we must assume God isn't in
control of keeping His Word for a Witness. I suggest you read the Old
Testament - it has many, many examples of sinful men doing things that
they thought were in their power, but was actually being used by God
to bring about the results He had already planned.

Valid point Michael, but it does not address what was raised. The
corruption within the church at the time the Bible was being compliled is a
historical fact. Even believers cannot escape that. Even as a believer,
you cannot convince me that God ordained that the 66 books that we've been
handed are his complete set. Does not say that anywhere. My point - look
at what was said to you and don't look at it as an attack upon your faith.
The fact that many excluded books are seriously viewed by biblical scholars
as valid writings is evidence that man has gotten his hand into this thing.
None of that threatens the existence or the power of God.


Your words are as logical as the scientific method though. By you
simply stating It was changed/added to - means you know about those
changes.
I can go into a bunch of "intellectual" talk about how The Bible as a
book came to be (through man's view) but what is the use? It all comes
down to Faith - It is just silliness to those who don't believe.

Denying the influence of man on what we currently hold as the Bible is
foolishness as well. Michael - I think you just need to step back from this
for a moment and come back at it a little less "charged".


1 Corinthians 1:20-25
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of
this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [21] For
since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come
to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the
message preached to save those who believe. [22] For indeed Jews ask
for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; [23] but we preach Christ
crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness,
[24] but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God. [25] Because the foolishness
of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than
men.
Same here. You see it is a war. Not a physically violent war (since
if I did that I would be casting off the Truth). But it is a war
between light and darkness. I am afraid no matter how stupid and
ignorant I may be (I make no argument against it) light will win. You
can't stop it. It is already set and will happen. Revelation 13:10

Probably the worst thing you could have done to present a convincing
position.

--

-Mike-

On 2/29/2012 11:04 PM, wrote:
Freedom OF religion is part of an American's "inalienable rights".
Freedom "from" religion is not mentioned - but you are free to "not"
believe as much as to believe.

I'm the OP. I hadn't looked at this thread in a while.

It seems to have taken a turn.

I'm happy to report that the table saw has been largely cleansed of its
past sins, despite being generally agnostic on questions of religion.

Greg Guarino wrote:
On 2/29/2012 11:04 PM, wrote:
Freedom OF religion is part of an American's "inalienable rights".
Freedom "from" religion is not mentioned - but you are free to "not"
believe as much as to believe.

I'm the OP. I hadn't looked at this thread in a while.

It seems to have taken a turn.

I'm happy to report that the table saw has been largely cleansed of
its past sins, despite being generally agnostic on questions of
religion.

See what ya started?!

--

-Mike-

Mike Marlow wrote:


To be fair Michael, I am a person of faith, and I have heard similar claims
that try to state that "science" attempted to deny this or that. I
generally heard those things in churches. In reality, I seldom found real
science to be making those statements. I have seen common people like
ourselves, misquoting what science was saying, and trying to speak with
authority that they did not have, but I just did not hear science make those
proclamations. I have heard scientists of different disciplines propose
ideas that were contrary to what the Bible stated, but even those were
generally not as an outright denial or confrontation. There are some big
difference such as the age of the earth as viewed by science and as proposed
by young earth creationists. That's an entirely different matter. There
was some really bad science - or attempts at sounding scientific, being
thrown around by those folks 15 years ago.

I do not know what the "young earth" people claim - I don't follow them
either. I try to only follow what is written.
I on the other hand have heard scientists speak is great confidence of
things directly trying to contradict God's Word.

I have also heard the argument for years of how science really doesn't
try to disprove God's Word. It simply is not true. It is a cover, they
turn right around (in the next sentence usually) and do try.

But even in around about way if I, you, or they contradict what His Word
tells us - then we are trying.


Yet Thomas...


He was reprimanded for his disbelief. I would hope no one seeks to copy
things we know are incorrect.



Valid point Michael, but it does not address what was raised. The
corruption within the church at the time the Bible was being compliled is a
historical fact. Even believers cannot escape that. Even as a believer,
you cannot convince me that God ordained that the 66 books that we've been
handed are his complete set. Does not say that anywhere. My point - look
at what was said to you and don't look at it as an attack upon your faith.
The fact that many excluded books are seriously viewed by biblical scholars
as valid writings is evidence that man has gotten his hand into this thing.
None of that threatens the existence or the power of God.


I may not have been clear enough. Let me try again.
It doesn't matter what man did or didn't do. God controls the outcome.
If we believe in God, then we believe God is in control. If God is in
control then He used these men (even if they were trying to put their
own beliefs in - or squelch some other) - maybe I could say, He forced,
these men to the outcome He had planned.

And yes I will say the book we have today is all we need and God must
have intended it that way. I don't really know of any books considered
original that scholars claim should be in there - but then many/most of
the "scholars" are of those who prefer to "adjust" the Word to their own
desires anyway. But none of it changes what His Word tells us.

Let me just note that if God hadn't been in control, we wouldn't have
His Word today - because it convicts all those mentioned. If they were
trying to make their views look good they failed miserably because His
Word convicts their teachings and lifestyles.

I think it would help us humans greatly if we would just get a
perspective of how useless our attempt to control things is. We can't.
When we think we have - it is actually what was planned before, we just
think we were in control.

We are headed for the planned ending and nothing can change it.
Isaiah 10:15
Is the axe to boast itself over the one who chops with it?
Is the saw to exalt itself over the one who wields it?
That would be like a club wielding those who lift it,
Or like a rod lifting him who is not wood.


Denying the influence of man on what we currently hold as the Bible is
foolishness as well. Michael - I think you just need to step back from this
for a moment and come back at it a little less "charged".


Charged?
Not at all. In fact I have pushed myself to keep up with the thread
because once it degenerates into "you don't know" - "yes, I do", "no you
don't" it gets very tiring and I don't like it (the discussion becomes
unfruitful to the writers and the readers).


1 Corinthians 1:20-25
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of
this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [21] For
since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come
to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the
message preached to save those who believe. [22] For indeed Jews ask
for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; [23] but we preach Christ
crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness,
[24] but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ
the power of God and the wisdom of God. [25] Because the foolishness
of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than
men.

Probably the worst thing you could have done to present a convincing
position.


It is not about me. I don't mind being treated badly (or try not to). If
I know this to be God's Word then It is the convincing position to those
who might get something from this. I could have answered all these posts
simple by pasting verses in. His Word answers all these things
(literally - Instead of trying to use my own words, each point could be
answered from His Word).

Man has tried every method to solve their problems but one - and they
will never *willingly* try it. *He* (no one else) will force them to
though (remember - He will dash them as a pot, every knee will bow, etc.).

--
Michael Joel

parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols

Greg Guarino wrote in news:jiolp1$ie6$1@dont-
email.me:

On 2/29/2012 11:04 PM, wrote:
Freedom OF religion is part of an American's "inalienable rights".
Freedom "from" religion is not mentioned - but you are free to "not"
believe as much as to believe.

I'm the OP. I hadn't looked at this thread in a while.

It seems to have taken a turn.

I'm happy to report that the table saw has been largely cleansed of its
past sins, despite being generally agnostic on questions of religion.

I'm happy for you! Science (and some muscle) always trump religion grin.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote:

I'm happy for you! Science (and some muscle) always trump religion
grin.
------------------------------------
Religion, the greatest con job on the planet.

Lew

Han wrote:

But I'd very much like you to admit that others might have found truth in
circumstances and under religions different from you, since there could
very well be universal human values that everyone could and should strive
for.

I will go as far as I can.
Other religions may have truths but only the *True* Christian Faith has
The *Truth*.

Here is what I mean:
(This was a example taken from a personal discussion I had with someone
a long time back)
There is orange juice in the refrigerator. That is truth.
Now tomorrow, after breakfast, it no longer will be truth.

God's Word is Truth. Tomorrow it will still be Truth. Billions (though I
am pretty sure time will no longer matter) of years from now It will
still be Truth.

To back that up (my source):
Hebrews 13:8-9
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever. [9]
Do not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good
for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which
those who were thus occupied were not benefited. (NASB)

John 17:17
"Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. (NASB)

Isaiah 40:25-28
To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy
One. [26] Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these
things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by
names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not
one faileth. [27] Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My
way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?
[28] Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting
God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not,
neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

See, His answers are much better than mine

--
Michael Joel

parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols

On 03/01/2012 05:11 PM, Michael Joel wrote:
Han wrote:

But I'd very much like you to admit that others might have found truth
in circumstances and under religions different from you, since there
could very well be universal human values that everyone could and
should strive for.

I will go as far as I can.
Other religions may have truths but only the *True* Christian Faith has
The *Truth*.

Here is what I mean:
(This was a example taken from a personal discussion I had with someone
a long time back)
There is orange juice in the refrigerator. That is truth.
Now tomorrow, after breakfast, it no longer will be truth.

God's Word is Truth. Tomorrow it will still be Truth. Billions (though I
am pretty sure time will no longer matter) of years from now It will
still be Truth.

To back that up (my source):
Hebrews 13:8-9
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever. [9] Do
not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for
the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those
who were thus occupied were not benefited. (NASB)

John 17:17
"Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. (NASB)

Isaiah 40:25-28
To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
[26] Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these
things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by
names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not
one faileth. [27] Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My
way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?
[28] Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God,
the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is
weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

See, His answers are much better than mine


Enough, I finally had to filter.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Michael Joel wrote:

Here is what I mean:
(This was a example taken from a personal discussion I had with someone
a long time back)
There is orange juice in the refrigerator. That is truth.

I agree that sounds silly.

Let me make it clear the orange juice comparison was not mine - that was
what someone was trying to say to me to prove there were other "truths"
bedside's God's Word.

I wanted to clarify that. I come up with wild comparisons sometimes, but
not that one. When I do come up with a wild one my family usually tells
me try again

--
Michael Joel

parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:11:16 -0500, Michael Joel wrote:

To back that up (my source):
Hebrews 13:8-9

Michael, I thought I was done with this thread, but you've got me shaking
my head in despair. Can't you see that quoting the bible to prove your
belief is like saying the bible is the word of god because the bible says
it's the word of god. It's a circular argument. Only works when
preaching to the choir :-).

There's no way I can reason with that kind of illogic. I give up. If it
makes you feel better, you can have the last word.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:24:28 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

And PARTICULARLY off topic and sorely out of place is any criticism of
your current commander in chief.

Why is that "sorely out of place" but criticism of the previous C-in-C wasn't?
History vs conjecture??

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:16:46 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:45:01 -0500, clare wrote:

The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack of
understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

And with that one sentence you've shown how much you do not understand.
You denigrate scientific theories which, as have been pointed out to you
and others time and again, result from a great deal of testing to see if
they hold up. Then you and Michael base your arguments on a book that
has nothing to support its claim to be the "Truth" but your belief.

BTW, have either of you read the bible books that were thrown out by
Jerome because they didn't agree with his beliefs? Or the ones Luther
threw out because they disagreed with his? Or the one Joseph Smith
added? How about the version edited by Thomas Jefferson? Amazing how
the "revealed Truth" changes over time, isn't it?

I wonder why I bother with these threads but then I remember that if just
one person reads this and questions his beliefs because of it, whatever
the conclusion he comes to at least I've encouraged him to think about
them.
Where in my post did I give any indication what my beliefs are???

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 14:18:50 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 23:45:01 -0500, clare wrote:

The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

And with that one sentence you've shown how much you do not
understand. You denigrate scientific theories which, as have been
pointed out to you and others time and again, result from a great
deal of testing to see if they hold up. Then you and Michael base
your arguments on a book that has nothing to support its claim to be
the "Truth" but your belief.


I might have missed it because I stay a bit away from these threads, but I
did not see where scientific theory had been denegraded. What I did catch,
was an argument that suggested that too much faith - or trust, if you will,
can be placed in things that are labeled as scientific. Since all of this
stuff involves people and not pure truth as administered by God, or pure
science as principles dictate, there is room, and plenty of room for error
on both sides. Neither side can lay a claim to an absolutely uncorrupted
methodology or knowledge. In the end - ya lays yer money down and ya takes
yer chances...


BTW, have either of you read the bible books that were thrown out by
Jerome because they didn't agree with his beliefs? Or the ones Luther
threw out because they disagreed with his? Or the one Joseph Smith
added? How about the version edited by Thomas Jefferson? Amazing how
the "revealed Truth" changes over time, isn't it?


I am a believer in the Bible and I have a faith in God that I try to let
steer my otherwise not-so-godly personality. That said... these are
extremely valid and valuable points, worthy of consideration. Having gone
through a few phases in life and realized that the fervor of my youth was
replaced by the wisdom of my age, I've simply come to the point of admiting
that the more I know the more I don't know.

FWIW - I figure that if there is a God (as I believe there is...), and he's
so doggoned big and powerful, and so smart, and so capable, and so perfect
(etc., etc., etc...), then there is now way on God's green earth that I am
going to be able to understand the vastness of those qualities - in other
words... I cannot understand him enough to make a statement that "this is
the truth..." with any degree of absolute conviction. These days I look at
those things in a more relative sense. I believe what has been revealed to
me, what I am currently able to understand, and I don't pretend to put
boundries on such a powerful being by restricting him to what I can
understand at the time. I've just seen too many growth adventures in my
life (both in the realm of faith and in the realm of "worldly things"), to
presume that I'm that freakin' smart anymore. You may not be able to teach
old dogs new tricks, but you can show them something different about the old
tricks.

I wonder why I bother with these threads but then I remember that if
just one person reads this and questions his beliefs because of it,
whatever the conclusion he comes to at least I've encouraged him to
think about them.

I'm not big on questioning beliefs. I'm big on growth and awareness. But -
that's my schtick. I believe that having beliefs is more valuable than
questioning beliefs - and I'm a rebel of sorts. Why should a person
question their faith? Faith is a good thing. I'm more concerned for blind
acceptance of things - sort of the open head, pour in thoughts concept.
Whether one believes that our brain comes from God or not, I do believe we
have the obligation to examine things, using that brain. One either side of
the arugment. Regardless of whether we are talking about faith, science, or
the positions in the kamasutra, today's knowledge is a steppingstone to
tomorrow's increased understandings. I just don't try to fool myself into
believing that I have it all figured out.
Well put, Mike.

On 01 Mar 2012 19:21:03 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in news:njvtk7dmej4vah27a052fpk50af929gt7j@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:19 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:00:21 -0500, Michael Joel
wrote:

So I end the post (I know some people will think I'm getting off the
soap box)

Your interpretation of science as religion shows a lack of
understanding. Me I have no faith in humankinds ability to percieve an
omnipotent entity and what that entity intended or intends.

Remember the answer to life and everything.
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

I can't agree with the last statement of Clare's. Science tries to
explain things from the perspective of proven truisms. 1+1=2 etc. No
faith, no believe, no religion is involved.
1+1+2 isn't exactly science. It is a clearly demonstratable concept.


It goes from there and gets
then at the edge of belief (not faith, not religion) when we try to use
science to explain where we came from. Using the proven theory
"Proven theory"? What "undeniable proof" do we have that ANY genus
has "evolved" from another genus?? Is there ANY "proof" that a genus
opf water animals "evolved" into a genus of land animals, or flying
animals?? Even more basic - is there any "proof" that somehow
vegetation "evolved" into animal life???

Has "science" been able to demonstrate that the latter is even
POSSIBLE??

Untill science can demonstrate it is possible, even with human
intervention, it is still FAR from "fact" - and even if it DID happen,
and can be PROVED to have happened - what intervention was involved??
What power or force provided the extremely complex conditions
required for this transformation to happen? It is obviously an
"extremely complex" set of conditions if the most brilliant of those
at the top of this "evolutionary ladder" cannot explain and replicate
those conditions to repeat the transformation under laboratory
conditions.

The "belief" in evolution as the major factor in the origin of man, or
the species, is definitely in the "unproven and so far unproveable"
realm of "faith" - and a "slavish" following of that "faith", to the
point that it influences other aspects of one's life - ie their
relationships with others who "believe" differently puts it firmly in
the territory of "religion".

of
evolution, using math, physics and chemistry, including thermodynamics
and quantum mechanics. As discussed before, hypotheses try to formulate
a theory (based on observed or postulated observable facts) before it is
proven, while a theory is supposed to be fully proven.

There are still many things we do not (fully) understand.

And that differs from faith and religion in what way??

That follows
the "law" that says if a theory is proven finally, there should be more
questions coming out of that work than there were before the theory was
proven.

Which again differs from "religion" in what way??

I agree that laws may have originated from religious beliefs, but almost
all civilizations have a core set of identical laws that are similar to
the US Constitution as well as the 10 commandments. Maybe they could be
explained evolutionarily as promoting (or donditional for) the survival
of the fittest ... A sort of "convergent" evolution, a well-validated
concept.

Or perhaps the "god" is universal, and only the concept of the "god"
differs across thereligions and civilizations? Which does not
eliminate the (strong) possibility that more than one has a mistaken
"concept" of that "god" , or that one MAY, POSSIBLY have a
fundamentally correct concept and interpretation of that "god"

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:17:48 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

On 03/01/2012 05:11 PM, Michael Joel wrote:
Han wrote:

But I'd very much like you to admit that others might have found truth
in circumstances and under religions different from you, since there
could very well be universal human values that everyone could and
should strive for.

I will go as far as I can.
Other religions may have truths but only the *True* Christian Faith has
The *Truth*.

Here is what I mean:
(This was a example taken from a personal discussion I had with someone
a long time back)
There is orange juice in the refrigerator. That is truth.
Now tomorrow, after breakfast, it no longer will be truth.

God's Word is Truth. Tomorrow it will still be Truth. Billions (though I
am pretty sure time will no longer matter) of years from now It will
still be Truth.

To back that up (my source):
Hebrews 13:8-9
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yes and forever. [9] Do
not be carried away by varied and strange teachings; for it is good for
the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, through which those
who were thus occupied were not benefited. (NASB)

John 17:17
"Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. (NASB)

Isaiah 40:25-28
To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.
[26] Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these
things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by
names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not
one faileth. [27] Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My
way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?
[28] Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God,
the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is
weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

See, His answers are much better than mine


Enough, I finally had to filter.

Call me Queeksdraw! I've seen enough religious fanatics that I caught
the precursor dialog and filtered him on the very first hit. sigh

And if that makes me look closed-minded to certain Canadians, so be
it.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Larry Blanchard wrote:

Michael, I thought I was done with this thread, but you've got me shaking
my head in despair. Can't you see that quoting the bible to prove your
belief is like saying the bible is the word of god because the bible says
it's the word of god. It's a circular argument. Only works when
preaching to the choir :-).

There's no way I can reason with that kind of illogic. I give up. If it
makes you feel better, you can have the last word.


I happily accept that you think such of me.

Don't you refer to scientific "evidence"? That is not "preaching to
*your* choir"?

I knew my quoting wouldn't convince anyone except those that believe.
But as you see - it once again drew out the reaction that shows hypocrisy.

1 John 4:4-6
You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because
greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. [5] They are
from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world
listens to them. [6] We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he
who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of
truth and the spirit of error. (NASB)

Just to note, "listens to us" (those obeying The Truth), not because we
are somehow great - but because we simply repeat what God says. So they
are not really 'listening to us' but listening to God's Words we simply
are repeating.

--
Michael Joel

parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:21:55 -0500, Greg Guarino
wrote:

On 2/29/2012 11:04 PM, wrote:
Freedom OF religion is part of an American's "inalienable rights".
Freedom "from" religion is not mentioned - but you are free to "not"
believe as much as to believe.

I'm the OP. I hadn't looked at this thread in a while.

It seems to have taken a turn.

I'm happy to report that the table saw has been largely cleansed of its
past sins, despite being generally agnostic on questions of religion.
And blissfully ignorant of it's origin.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4f500d38$0$31146
:


"Han" wrote:

I'm happy for you! Science (and some muscle) always trump religion
grin.
------------------------------------
Religion, the greatest con job on the planet.

Lew

Faith and religion is very important for some people. When used for good,
it is excellent, just like science ... Calling it a con job is a cop-out.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Michael Joel wrote in
m:

Michael Joel wrote:

Here is what I mean:
(This was a example taken from a personal discussion I had with
someone a long time back)
There is orange juice in the refrigerator. That is truth.

I agree that sounds silly.

Let me make it clear the orange juice comparison was not mine - that
was what someone was trying to say to me to prove there were other
"truths" bedside's God's Word.

I wanted to clarify that. I come up with wild comparisons sometimes,
but not that one. When I do come up with a wild one my family usually
tells me try again

I give up too, you are an example why people might think religion is a
con job. You certainly have been conned. I hope you're happy and won't
realize it.

With apologies for my disrespect.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote:
------------------------------------
Religion, the greatest con job on the planet.

Lew
-------------------------
Faith and religion is very important for some people. When used for
good,
it is excellent, just like science ... Calling it a con job is a
cop-out.

----------------------------
To each his own.

That's the beauty of a good con.

It almost looks legit.

Lew

Han wrote:

I give up too

Sorry to hear that.

, you are an example why people might think religion is a
con job. You certainly have been conned. I hope you're happy and won't
realize it.

With apologies for my disrespect.

I too am sorry we couldn't come to an agreement.
Maybe one day we will agree. There will be a day when people will know
it is the Truth because their own eyes will see it.

Just to end with - I hope each person in this discussion will realize
that they themselves do exactly as I have done. The difference is they
are going on their own thoughts, feelings, and rules. (or I should say
most, since I don't know about some of the poster's views)

While I am a "Pariah" because I try to go strictly by God's Word instead
- without interpreting It to fit my wants.

As I said - I do *not want* to force my beliefs on anyone. If you ever
want to bring the topic up again - feel free to.

--
Michael Joel

parksfamily2 ------ ---- --- gmail ----- ----- com
replace dashes with correct symbols

wrote in
:

On 01 Mar 2012 19:21:03 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in news:njvtk7dmej4vah27a052fpk50af929gt7j@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:19 -0600, Markem
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:00:21 -0500, Michael Joel
wrote:

So I end the post (I know some people will think I'm getting off
the soap box)

Your interpretation of science as religion shows a lack of
understanding. Me I have no faith in humankinds ability to percieve
an omnipotent entity and what that entity intended or intends.

Remember the answer to life and everything.
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

I can't agree with the last statement of Clare's. Science tries to
explain things from the perspective of proven truisms. 1+1=2 etc. No
faith, no believe, no religion is involved.
1+1+2 isn't exactly science. It is a clearly demonstratable concept.


It goes from there and gets
then at the edge of belief (not faith, not religion) when we try to
use science to explain where we came from. Using the proven theory
"Proven theory"? What "undeniable proof" do we have that ANY genus
has "evolved" from another genus?? Is there ANY "proof" that a genus
opf water animals "evolved" into a genus of land animals, or flying
animals?? Even more basic - is there any "proof" that somehow
vegetation "evolved" into animal life???

Has "science" been able to demonstrate that the latter is even
POSSIBLE??

Untill science can demonstrate it is possible, even with human
intervention, it is still FAR from "fact" - and even if it DID happen,
and can be PROVED to have happened - what intervention was involved??
What power or force provided the extremely complex conditions
required for this transformation to happen? It is obviously an
"extremely complex" set of conditions if the most brilliant of those
at the top of this "evolutionary ladder" cannot explain and replicate
those conditions to repeat the transformation under laboratory
conditions.

The "belief" in evolution as the major factor in the origin of man, or
the species, is definitely in the "unproven and so far unproveable"
realm of "faith" - and a "slavish" following of that "faith", to the
point that it influences other aspects of one's life - ie their
relationships with others who "believe" differently puts it firmly in
the territory of "religion".

of
evolution, using math, physics and chemistry, including thermodynamics
and quantum mechanics. As discussed before, hypotheses try to
formulate a theory (based on observed or postulated observable facts)
before it is proven, while a theory is supposed to be fully proven.

There are still many things we do not (fully) understand.

And that differs from faith and religion in what way??

That follows
the "law" that says if a theory is proven finally, there should be
more questions coming out of that work than there were before the
theory was proven.

Which again differs from "religion" in what way??

I agree that laws may have originated from religious beliefs, but
almost all civilizations have a core set of identical laws that are
similar to the US Constitution as well as the 10 commandments. Maybe
they could be explained evolutionarily as promoting (or donditional
for) the survival of the fittest ... A sort of "convergent"
evolution, a well-validated concept.

Or perhaps the "god" is universal, and only the concept of the "god"
differs across thereligions and civilizations? Which does not
eliminate the (strong) possibility that more than one has a mistaken
"concept" of that "god" , or that one MAY, POSSIBLY have a
fundamentally correct concept and interpretation of that "god"

Indeed we disagree. If I say I don't understand "something", that means
either or both of two things. I haven't educated or bothered to educate
myself to understand the existing proof of "something" although it has
definitely been proven, or investigations as to the why and how haven't
yet elucidated the why and how.

Let me explain the latter a little more. I am a biochemist interested in
blood, blood platelets and other blood cells (including cells of blood
vessels, mainly the socalled endothelial cells lining the inside of
normal healthy blood vessels), and in stroke and heart disease, until I
retired a little over a year ago. One of the mysteries of blood has
always been why it is liquid inside normal blood vessels and why it
becomes "solid" outside - blood clotting. The whole thing is exceedingly
important because you don't want clots (or something different that's
called platelet aggregates) inside a blood vessel, but if you get a
wound, you want bleeding to stop as soon as possible. Ask the DOD, they
will tell you how much they have invested in research to stop bleeding,
with some successes.

It has long been thought that the inside of blood vessels prevented
clotting somehow, and at first it was thought to be a "teflon"-like
property. Now we know how far from that it is. For instance, it was
discovered (Bengt Samuelson got the Nobel price for it) that a
prostaglandin-like substance was made by blood platelets from arachidonic
acid that he called thromboxane, and which (despite a half-life of
seconds) was capable of causing platelets to aggregate and convert
prothrombin into thrombin, which causes blood clotting (thrombosis is a
related word). Another group demonstrated that aspirin prevents
formation of TX by forming a chemical bond in the enzyme that made an
intermediate in TX formation. Clinical trials have proven that aspirin,
in doses that really don't do anything against pain, prevent a great deal
of heart attacks and strokes in many people who would have had them
without the aspirin.

But that wasn't the end of the story. At some point in the middle 70's
an English group discovered a new prostaglandin-like substance they first
called PG-X (prostaglandins had been named PG-A, -B etc in sequence
following discovery, with G and H having been the latest until then), and
later PG-I or prostacyclin (because it has another cyclic bond). This
had the opposite actions of TX (which is called that because structurally
it is not a prostaglandin, although it is directly derived from PG-H).
PG-I inhibits platelet activation, and is made by endothelial cells on
the blood vessel wall. Great! Now we could solve thrombosis, strokes
and heart attacks! Even greater was the discovery that there are 2
different enzymes that make the intermediate to TX and PG-I,
cyclooxygenase 1 and 2 (Cox1, Cox2). And they are in different cells
platelets an endothelial cells. Cox2 isn't as sensitive to aspirin as
Cox1, so a not too big dose of aspirin (see above).

A very smart guy thought that if you could prevent the damage to stomach
and intestine that aspirin can cause in some people, life would be MUCH
better for people with arthritis. The very high doses of aspirin and
similar eroded those people's lining of their GI tract. The Cox1-
mediated formation of prostaglandins (other than TX and PG-I) prevents
that (in part). And it was thought that Cox2 formation of prostaglandins
mediated some of the pain of arthritis. So, they set about (before all
was known about Cox3 and PG-I) to make drugs that were specific for Cox2.
Some of these were/are Vioxx and Celebrex. Vioxx differs quite a bit
from Celebrex, but both were marketed as drugs for arthritis/rheumatism.
Merck was exceeedingly aggressive in their marketing of Vioxx and
withheld data about bad side effects and Vioxx has been taken off the
market because somehow (and I'm not sure of all the intricacies) it
inhibits PG-I formation in such a way as to cause an excess of heart
attacks over when it isn't used. About twice as many people on Vioxx got
MIs as people who didn't take it, and that effect (I don't understand
exactly how) persisted months after they stopped taking Vioxx.

I hope you get my drift that not understanding something has absolutely
nothing to do with faith, just is a result of a lack of knowledge.

It gets complicated by the fact that people aren't lab mice that are all
inbred to be identical.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 03/01/2012 07:17 PM, Han wrote:
wrote in
:

On 01 Mar 2012 19:21:03 GMT, wrote:

wrote in news:njvtk7dmej4vah27a052fpk50af929gt7j@
4ax.com:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 14:23:19 -0600,
wrote:

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 12:00:21 -0500, Michael
wrote:

So I end the post (I know some people will think I'm getting off
the soap box)

Your interpretation of science as religion shows a lack of
understanding. Me I have no faith in humankinds ability to percieve
an omnipotent entity and what that entity intended or intends.

Remember the answer to life and everything.
The interpretation of science as other than a religion shows a lack
of understanding of how much we really do NOT understand.

I can't agree with the last statement of Clare's. Science tries to
explain things from the perspective of proven truisms. 1+1=2 etc. No
faith, no believe, no religion is involved.
1+1+2 isn't exactly science. It is a clearly demonstratable concept.


It goes from there and gets
then at the edge of belief (not faith, not religion) when we try to
use science to explain where we came from. Using the proven theory
"Proven theory"? What "undeniable proof" do we have that ANY genus
has "evolved" from another genus?? Is there ANY "proof" that a genus
opf water animals "evolved" into a genus of land animals, or flying
animals?? Even more basic - is there any "proof" that somehow
vegetation "evolved" into animal life???

Has "science" been able to demonstrate that the latter is even
POSSIBLE??

Untill science can demonstrate it is possible, even with human
intervention, it is still FAR from "fact" - and even if it DID happen,
and can be PROVED to have happened - what intervention was involved??
What power or force provided the extremely complex conditions
required for this transformation to happen? It is obviously an
"extremely complex" set of conditions if the most brilliant of those
at the top of this "evolutionary ladder" cannot explain and replicate
those conditions to repeat the transformation under laboratory
conditions.

The "belief" in evolution as the major factor in the origin of man, or
the species, is definitely in the "unproven and so far unproveable"
realm of "faith" - and a "slavish" following of that "faith", to the
point that it influences other aspects of one's life - ie their
relationships with others who "believe" differently puts it firmly in
the territory of "religion".

of
evolution, using math, physics and chemistry, including thermodynamics
and quantum mechanics. As discussed before, hypotheses try to
formulate a theory (based on observed or postulated observable facts)
before it is proven, while a theory is supposed to be fully proven.

There are still many things we do not (fully) understand.

And that differs from faith and religion in what way??

That follows
the "law" that says if a theory is proven finally, there should be
more questions coming out of that work than there were before the
theory was proven.

Which again differs from "religion" in what way??

I agree that laws may have originated from religious beliefs, but
almost all civilizations have a core set of identical laws that are
similar to the US Constitution as well as the 10 commandments. Maybe
they could be explained evolutionarily as promoting (or donditional
for) the survival of the fittest ... A sort of "convergent"
evolution, a well-validated concept.

Or perhaps the "god" is universal, and only the concept of the "god"
differs across thereligions and civilizations? Which does not
eliminate the (strong) possibility that more than one has a mistaken
"concept" of that "god" , or that one MAY, POSSIBLY have a
fundamentally correct concept and interpretation of that "god"

Indeed we disagree. If I say I don't understand "something", that means
either or both of two things. I haven't educated or bothered to educate
myself to understand the existing proof of "something" although it has
definitely been proven, or investigations as to the why and how haven't
yet elucidated the why and how.

Let me explain the latter a little more. I am a biochemist interested in
blood, blood platelets and other blood cells (including cells of blood
vessels, mainly the socalled endothelial cells lining the inside of
normal healthy blood vessels), and in stroke and heart disease, until I
retired a little over a year ago. One of the mysteries of blood has
always been why it is liquid inside normal blood vessels and why it
becomes "solid" outside - blood clotting. The whole thing is exceedingly
important because you don't want clots (or something different that's
called platelet aggregates) inside a blood vessel, but if you get a
wound, you want bleeding to stop as soon as possible. Ask the DOD, they
will tell you how much they have invested in research to stop bleeding,
with some successes.

It has long been thought that the inside of blood vessels prevented
clotting somehow, and at first it was thought to be a "teflon"-like
property. Now we know how far from that it is. For instance, it was
discovered (Bengt Samuelson got the Nobel price for it) that a
prostaglandin-like substance was made by blood platelets from arachidonic
acid that he called thromboxane, and which (despite a half-life of
seconds) was capable of causing platelets to aggregate and convert
prothrombin into thrombin, which causes blood clotting (thrombosis is a
related word). Another group demonstrated that aspirin prevents
formation of TX by forming a chemical bond in the enzyme that made an
intermediate in TX formation. Clinical trials have proven that aspirin,
in doses that really don't do anything against pain, prevent a great deal
of heart attacks and strokes in many people who would have had them
without the aspirin.

But that wasn't the end of the story. At some point in the middle 70's
an English group discovered a new prostaglandin-like substance they first
called PG-X (prostaglandins had been named PG-A, -B etc in sequence
following discovery, with G and H having been the latest until then), and
later PG-I or prostacyclin (because it has another cyclic bond). This
had the opposite actions of TX (which is called that because structurally
it is not a prostaglandin, although it is directly derived from PG-H).
PG-I inhibits platelet activation, and is made by endothelial cells on
the blood vessel wall. Great! Now we could solve thrombosis, strokes
and heart attacks! Even greater was the discovery that there are 2
different enzymes that make the intermediate to TX and PG-I,
cyclooxygenase 1 and 2 (Cox1, Cox2). And they are in different cells
platelets an endothelial cells. Cox2 isn't as sensitive to aspirin as
Cox1, so a not too big dose of aspirin (see above).

A very smart guy thought that if you could prevent the damage to stomach
and intestine that aspirin can cause in some people, life would be MUCH
better for people with arthritis. The very high doses of aspirin and
similar eroded those people's lining of their GI tract. The Cox1-
mediated formation of prostaglandins (other than TX and PG-I) prevents
that (in part). And it was thought that Cox2 formation of prostaglandins
mediated some of the pain of arthritis. So, they set about (before all
was known about Cox3 and PG-I) to make drugs that were specific for Cox2.
Some of these were/are Vioxx and Celebrex. Vioxx differs quite a bit
from Celebrex, but both were marketed as drugs for arthritis/rheumatism.
Merck was exceeedingly aggressive in their marketing of Vioxx and
withheld data about bad side effects and Vioxx has been taken off the
market because somehow (and I'm not sure of all the intricacies) it
inhibits PG-I formation in such a way as to cause an excess of heart
attacks over when it isn't used. About twice as many people on Vioxx got
MIs as people who didn't take it, and that effect (I don't understand
exactly how) persisted months after they stopped taking Vioxx.

I hope you get my drift that not understanding something has absolutely
nothing to do with faith, just is a result of a lack of knowledge.

It gets complicated by the fact that people aren't lab mice that are all
inbred to be identical.


Jeez, all that! Everyone knows to stop bleeding from a cut, douse the
bleed in coffee grounds - preferably fresh.

Same with a burn - slather with egg white.

No wonder medical treatment cost so much ;-)




--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill