Michael Joel wrote:


See, His answers are much better than mine

Indeed - but that is because he does not insist that he has a human
(limited) understanding of truth. You do. Truth is truth - despite whether
you want to believe it or not, science does indeed discover truths.
Misconstrue that any way you choose. Faith embraces truth as well. What
you seem to miss is that your current understanding of truth is limited by
your own ability to understand, discern, comprehend. None of that questions
the truth of God's word, rather it questions your ability to admit your own
limitations to understand it. You lower God to your ability to understand.
That is just wrong.

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote:


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.

You might have done better than I, Larry. The sucker in me seems to succumb
to this type of thread. I just hate to see a good faith so badly
represented by irrational zealots, without trying to bring a sense of reason
to it. Never does seem to work...

--

-Mike-

Michael Joel wrote:


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)

Michael - you are not only a pompous ass, but you are a heretic. Who in the
world do you thin you are by passing judgement on anyone else around you?
You sir, are a fool. "The difference is..."??? Who are you to define the
differences between your crap and that of others? You need to go back to
Bible School 101.


While I am a "Pariah" because I try to go strictly by God's Word

By your chosen interpretation of what that word says... God forbid that you
might be wrong...

instead - without interpreting It to fit my wants.

No - better stated "without interpreting it to fit what you want others to
believe". If you really were focused on what it said without regards to
your wants, you would not be so insistant on others seeing everything your
way. You have much to learn Grasshopper.


As I said - I do *not want* to force my beliefs on anyone.

You are measured by what you do - not by what you "say" you do. You need to
look more closely at your own preaching Michael.


If you ever
want to bring the topic up again - feel free to.

Doubt there are many here who want to bring up yet another zealot
conversation - with you or anyone else. Believe it or not, many here are
blievers - they just do not want to deal with immature zealots in this
forum.

--

-Mike-

On 02 Mar 2012 02:17:07 GMT, Han wrote:

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.
Han, you are dealing with what I (and many others) refer to as "pure
science" - or "applied science" where you are investigating something
that happens - in real time - and studying all the effects of
different compounds - which can be identified, and hopefully,
eventually, understood.
No "faith" required.

Theoretical science - and theoretical physics in particular, is a
horse of a different colour - at least today. The Perimeter Institute
of Theoretical Physics is just down the road from my home - less than
2 miles away. Progress is being made - and some of the geniuses
working there actually have some pretty good and well established
theories and are making progress towards understanding.

The "science" of history and understanding the origin of the
universe, earth, and life are relatively in their infancy - and while
theories abound NOTHING has actually been "proved".

The whole "quantum" physics is totally beyond my understanding -
although the concept of parallel universes and different planes and
time/space continuums actually has a lot of possibilities for
explaining the "spiritual", and the concept of "eternity".

My guess is that a LOT of scientists in this field will find there is
a lot more "truth" to the biblical record than they are currently
willing to entertain. ( as have many archeologists and physical
historians - as places mentioned in the historical biblical records,
foprmerly thought to be ficticious, are found - and the basics - if
not all the details, are found to be historically accurate.)

You (as well as the hard core believers) need to understand and
remember that although the old testament scriptures may be "inspired"
they are based on a long verbal tradition before they were written -
and they are based on what was understandable by those people at that
time.
You (or they) cannot base a 6000 year old earth on the information
contained in the first 3 books of the old testament - and science CAN
prove that something existed long before 4000BC. Any "reasonable"
Christian, or other Theist, needs to admit that there is a strong
possibility that the 7 day creation is more of a metaphore than a
detailed scientific explanation.

And any "reasonable" scientist needs to also accept that - and the
FACT there is much they still cannot explain or understand which MAY
be related to some power they cannot prove or disprove - and the
concept of "time" or "age" may have been severely distorted by some
event, or some power, which is not yet understood by science - and
this "power" MAY be the "god" power or entity on which religion is
based.

I won't even get into discussions of New Testament scripture or the
diety of Christ - other than to say anyone who doubts the EXISTANCE of
the "historical Christ" has a strong bias and has blinkers on. That he
existed is a well established historical fact. Who or what he was is a
matter (at least to this point) of faith.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 19:29:12 -0700, Doug Winterburn
wrote:

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 ;-)
Understanding WHY some treatments work and others don't - and what
the side effects of these treatments are is what the "science" is all
about.
Biology, physics, and chemistry are the "pure " sciences, and they
are closely related. BioChemistry and BioPhysics (or Kinesiology - I
know they are not the same - but they are related) tie the three
together inextricably.
All three can be "physically" investigated and quantified, and
"understood".
Yes, the understanding changes over time, as theories are developed,
expanded, proven, or disproven - sometimes intentionally, and
sometimes totally by accident - either constructive or destructive.

The "theoretical sciences" are a totally different situation, in so
many ways.

wrote:

Well put, Mike.

Thanks clare. I really do try to steer a bit wide and clear of most of this
stuff, because it's core belief stuff and it never seems to work well in
newsgroup interactions. That said - I dipped my foot into this pond, and
I'm at least happy to hear that I did something right - for a change.
(humor).

These are important conversations and I believe them to be worth the
interchange, but they are emotionally charged - regardless of which side
they originate from. Just too bad that they have to always be so devisive.
They just always seem to go there...


--

-Mike-

Han wrote:


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.

Dude - I snipped everything you posted above the included text because you
made my head hurt. Not because I could not understand it, rather because I
could not understand it. You really hafta stop doing that!

That said - your included comment above is spot on.


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

We aren't? Damn! I gotta think about this. Does that mean I really can't
convince my wife to...

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:31:40 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:

Well put, Mike.

Thanks clare. I really do try to steer a bit wide and clear of most of this
stuff, because it's core belief stuff and it never seems to work well in
newsgroup interactions. That said - I dipped my foot into this pond, and
I'm at least happy to hear that I did something right - for a change.
(humor).

These are important conversations and I believe them to be worth the
interchange, but they are emotionally charged - regardless of which side
they originate from. Just too bad that they have to always be so devisive.
They just always seem to go there...

Sadly America, in particular, is VERY polarized on political/religious
lines - and the "radical conservative right" - AKA the Fundamental
Christian Right so poorly represents true Christianity - much as Al
Quaida poorly represents "true" Islam, and the poligamist "nutcase"
Mormans poorly represent their faith as well.
The same can be said of Israeli politicians and Jadaism.

However, the divisiveness of politics and religion in the USA is due
to a poor understanding of the concept of the "separation of church
and state" which goes back, historically, to Martin Luther. Zwingly,
and a plethora of other "reformers" as far back as the early 1500s.

Those who fail to learn from (the mistakes of) history are condemned
to repeat them. From my historic background I can only hope the
excesses of the 1500s and the protestant reformation in general - and
the anabaptist movement in particular, are not repeated in America.

Respect is they key. And respect in America has been largely lost - on
both sides.

wrote:

Han, you are dealing with what I (and many others) refer to as "pure
science" - or "applied science" where you are investigating something
that happens - in real time - and studying all the effects of
different compounds - which can be identified, and hopefully,
eventually, understood.
No "faith" required.

Theoretical science - and theoretical physics in particular, is a
horse of a different colour - at least today. The Perimeter Institute
of Theoretical Physics is just down the road from my home - less than
2 miles away. Progress is being made - and some of the geniuses
working there actually have some pretty good and well established
theories and are making progress towards understanding.

The "science" of history and understanding the origin of the
universe, earth, and life are relatively in their infancy - and while
theories abound NOTHING has actually been "proved".

The whole "quantum" physics is totally beyond my understanding -
although the concept of parallel universes and different planes and
time/space continuums actually has a lot of possibilities for
explaining the "spiritual", and the concept of "eternity".

My guess is that a LOT of scientists in this field will find there is
a lot more "truth" to the biblical record than they are currently
willing to entertain. ( as have many archeologists and physical
historians - as places mentioned in the historical biblical records,
foprmerly thought to be ficticious, are found - and the basics - if
not all the details, are found to be historically accurate.)

You (as well as the hard core believers) need to understand and
remember that although the old testament scriptures may be "inspired"
they are based on a long verbal tradition before they were written -
and they are based on what was understandable by those people at that
time.
You (or they) cannot base a 6000 year old earth on the information
contained in the first 3 books of the old testament - and science CAN
prove that something existed long before 4000BC. Any "reasonable"
Christian, or other Theist, needs to admit that there is a strong
possibility that the 7 day creation is more of a metaphore than a
detailed scientific explanation.

And any "reasonable" scientist needs to also accept that - and the
FACT there is much they still cannot explain or understand which MAY
be related to some power they cannot prove or disprove - and the
concept of "time" or "age" may have been severely distorted by some
event, or some power, which is not yet understood by science - and
this "power" MAY be the "god" power or entity on which religion is
based.

I won't even get into discussions of New Testament scripture or the
diety of Christ - other than to say anyone who doubts the EXISTANCE of
the "historical Christ" has a strong bias and has blinkers on. That he
existed is a well established historical fact. Who or what he was is a
matter (at least to this point) of faith.

Could not bring myslef to snip this clare. A tip of the hat to ya. As you
bestowed upon me... Well said!

--

-Mike-

wrote:


Respect is they key. And respect in America has been largely lost - on
both sides.

Sadly - too true. I'm not sure though that it is strictly an American
think. The internet has made it apparent how widespread this issue really
is.

--

-Mike-

"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Religion, the greatest con job on the planet.
-----------------------------
George Carlin said it best.

http://tinyurl.com/ye7arpt


Lew

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:07:24 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:


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.

You might have done better than I, Larry. The sucker in me seems to succumb
to this type of thread.

Yes, I can see that. :-/


I just hate to see a good faith

sigh deleted


so badly
represented by irrational zealots, without trying to bring a sense of reason
to it. Never does seem to work...

Which is why I always shake my head in wonder at the number of posts
they get...

--
....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

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Religion, the greatest con job on the planet.
-----------------------------
George Carlin said it best.

http://tinyurl.com/ye7arpt


C'mon Lew - George Carlin as the spokesman for your position? You can do
better than that. I sure hope...

--

-Mike-

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:07:24 -0500, "Mike Marlow"


You might have done better than I, Larry. The sucker in me seems to
succumb to this type of thread.

Yes, I can see that. :-/

Ahhhh - yeabut I see you've stuck your toe into the same muck hole...


--

-Mike-

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 00:43:02 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:07:24 -0500, "Mike Marlow"


You might have done better than I, Larry. The sucker in me seems to
succumb to this type of thread.

Yes, I can see that. :-/

Ahhhh - yeabut I see you've stuck your toe into the same muck hole...

Yabbut, compare your number of posts on this topic to mine.
(1+ dozen a day vs. a couple in a week.)
It's toe vs jumping in and swimming in the muck hole.

(Now where'd I leave my toe deodorant?)

--
It is characteristic of all deep human problems that they are
not to be approached without some humor and some bewilderment.
-- Freeman Dyson

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in news:4f505481$0$27782
:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote:
Religion, the greatest con job on the planet.
-----------------------------
George Carlin said it best.

http://tinyurl.com/ye7arpt


Lew

That's the fire and brimstone aspect of /organized/ religion, used to keep
people in their place by the powers that be. Has nothing to do with real
faith and religion. MY OPINION ...


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

wrote in
:

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 23:31:40 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:

Well put, Mike.

Thanks clare. I really do try to steer a bit wide and clear of most
of this stuff, because it's core belief stuff and it never seems to
work well in newsgroup interactions. That said - I dipped my foot
into this pond, and I'm at least happy to hear that I did something
right - for a change. (humor).

These are important conversations and I believe them to be worth the
interchange, but they are emotionally charged - regardless of which
side they originate from. Just too bad that they have to always be so
devisive. They just always seem to go there...

Sadly America, in particular, is VERY polarized on political/religious
lines - and the "radical conservative right" - AKA the Fundamental
Christian Right so poorly represents true Christianity - much as Al
Quaida poorly represents "true" Islam, and the poligamist "nutcase"
Mormans poorly represent their faith as well.
The same can be said of Israeli politicians and Jadaism.

However, the divisiveness of politics and religion in the USA is due
to a poor understanding of the concept of the "separation of church
and state" which goes back, historically, to Martin Luther. Zwingly,
and a plethora of other "reformers" as far back as the early 1500s.

Those who fail to learn from (the mistakes of) history are condemned
to repeat them. From my historic background I can only hope the
excesses of the 1500s and the protestant reformation in general - and
the anabaptist movement in particular, are not repeated in America.

Respect is they key. And respect in America has been largely lost - on
both sides.

Amen!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

wrote:


Respect is they key. And respect in America has been largely lost -
on both sides.

Sadly - too true. I'm not sure though that it is strictly an American
think. The internet has made it apparent how widespread this issue
really is.

But internet discussions can also spread respect for differing opinions, I
fervently hope!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

wrote in news:etg0l75bnr6desab5ubucthrfmplmnjjtg@
4ax.com:

Han, you are dealing with what I (and many others) refer to as "pure
science" - or "applied science" where you are investigating something
that happens - in real time - and studying all the effects of
different compounds - which can be identified, and hopefully,
eventually, understood.
No "faith" required.

I know. That's my field, so to speak. I'm using the story to emphasize
that science at times cannot explain things, at least not easily or in
real detail. Later, when other studies add more detail things become
clear(er) in some respects, but pose novel questions to be further
studied. The same holds true for mathematics, theoretical physics or
cosmology, or other aspects of science or "life". In other words, what
is a "mystery" now can later be logically explained/proven. And similar
things happen to ethical/moral behaviors.

Theoretical science - and theoretical physics in particular, is a
horse of a different colour - at least today. The Perimeter Institute
of Theoretical Physics is just down the road from my home - less than
2 miles away. Progress is being made - and some of the geniuses
working there actually have some pretty good and well established
theories and are making progress towards understanding.

Yes, I see that no different than "real hard" science like mathematics.
The lingo may be different, and the starting points perhaps a bit fuzzier
than the concept of zero and 1+1=2, but that is where it ultimately goes
back to. You have to add quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle
and thermodynamics, but those are now well understood by those who study
it even a little.

The "science" of history and understanding the origin of the
universe, earth, and life are relatively in their infancy - and while
theories abound NOTHING has actually been "proved".

There are gaps in some details, perhaps big gaps, and the hypotheses may
not yet be real hard theories, but the real hard mapping points are well-
defined. Big Bang, formation of our galaxy from hydrogen as well as from
the results of earlier supernovas generating carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and
all the other elements, accretion on Earth of water, start of life and
all the extinctions, etc, etc are facts. Period. Even the development
of morality/ethics is now observed in animals and lower forms. That CAN
be explained as driven by evolution, without a God principle.

The whole "quantum" physics is totally beyond my understanding -
although the concept of parallel universes and different planes and
time/space continuums actually has a lot of possibilities for
explaining the "spiritual", and the concept of "eternity".

IMO, that is still SciFi or a rather far extension of quantum theories,
but indeed entirely possible, although so far not observable, the key to
real science.

My guess is that a LOT of scientists in this field will find there is
a lot more "truth" to the biblical record than they are currently
willing to entertain. ( as have many archeologists and physical
historians - as places mentioned in the historical biblical records,
foprmerly thought to be ficticious, are found - and the basics - if
not all the details, are found to be historically accurate.)

(see below)

You (as well as the hard core believers) need to understand and
remember that although the old testament scriptures may be "inspired"
they are based on a long verbal tradition before they were written -
and they are based on what was understandable by those people at that
time.
You (or they) cannot base a 6000 year old earth on the information
contained in the first 3 books of the old testament - and science CAN
prove that something existed long before 4000BC. Any "reasonable"
Christian, or other Theist, needs to admit that there is a strong
possibility that the 7 day creation is more of a metaphore than a
detailed scientific explanation.

Now are you saying that the Bible is a SciFi-like description of observed
realities, orally transmitted from person to person until it got finally
written down, with distortions from reality? I'll never dispute that the
Bible has historical facts, and that some facts are strung together
metaphorically.

And any "reasonable" scientist needs to also accept that - and the
FACT there is much they still cannot explain or understand which MAY
be related to some power they cannot prove or disprove - and the
concept of "time" or "age" may have been severely distorted by some
event, or some power, which is not yet understood by science - and
this "power" MAY be the "god" power or entity on which religion is
based.

Now you are inferring a God where I just see uncertainty as to what,
where, how and when. But that is fine with me grin.

I won't even get into discussions of New Testament scripture or the
diety of Christ - other than to say anyone who doubts the EXISTANCE of
the "historical Christ" has a strong bias and has blinkers on. That he
existed is a well established historical fact. Who or what he was is a
matter (at least to this point) of faith.

The only God-like thing I see here is Mary's conception of Jesus, if the
Bible is factually correct.

Of course, it has been pointed out before that for almost any statement
in the Bible, one can find another statement that is opposite, but I'm
definitely not a Bible expert!!


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/1/2012 3:24 PM, Michael Joel wrote:
Snip



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.


Do you receive knowledge with out seeking it, yet?

This is not a trap or trick question.

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:


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.

Dude - I snipped everything you posted above the included text because
you made my head hurt. Not because I could not understand it, rather
because I could not understand it. You really hafta stop doing that!

That said - your included comment above is spot on.


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

We aren't? Damn! I gotta think about this. Does that mean I really
can't convince my wife to...

Mike, this is something that is bedeviling medicine at the moment. so it
may seem funny and self-evident to you, but it is the reason why some
people are fine with a good medication, and others are not. Example:
ACE inhibitors are great high blood pressure drugs, but I developed an
irritating dry cough, and had to switch to another drug. Other people
are allergic to aspirin, and get asthmatic attacks. That is definitely
not funny. This type of thing is really setting back the development of
rationally designed drugs, and we are mostly still in the age of taking
stuff off a shelf and trying it out on this that or another condition.
Very disappointing, and extremely expensive. One of just a couple of
exceptions is Gleevec (Glievec), which was rationally designed for a kind
of leukemia, and has been generally extremely effective.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Do you receive knowledge with out seeking it, yet?

You must be unmarried, and have no children. Karl, can you help Leon?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 3/2/2012 7:32 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

Do you receive knowledge with out seeking it, yet?

You must be unmarried, and have no children. Karl, can you help Leon?


I don't think you understand the question.

On 3/1/2012 10:39 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:


Dude - I snipped everything you posted above the included text because you
made my head hurt.



"Not because I could not understand it, rather because I
could not understand it."


I don't understand "that". ;~)

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 07:20:40 -0600, Leon wrote:

On 3/1/2012 3:24 PM, Michael Joel wrote:
Snip



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.


Do you receive knowledge with out seeking it, yet?

This is not a trap or trick question.

Only by submission

basilisk

Han wrote:


Mike, this is something that is bedeviling medicine at the moment.
so it may seem funny and self-evident to you, but it is the reason
why some people are fine with a good medication, and others are not.
Example: ACE inhibitors are great high blood pressure drugs, but I
developed an irritating dry cough, and had to switch to another drug.
Other people are allergic to aspirin, and get asthmatic attacks.
That is definitely not funny. This type of thing is really setting
back the development of rationally designed drugs, and we are mostly
still in the age of taking stuff off a shelf and trying it out on
this that or another condition. Very disappointing, and extremely
expensive. One of just a couple of exceptions is Gleevec (Glievec),
which was rationally designed for a kind of leukemia, and has been
generally extremely effective.

Sorry Han - was not trying to say all of this was funny. Was just trying to
be funny. Sometimes it works, and sometimes...

--

-Mike-

My final answer. If anyone wants to continue they can contact me.
I never tried to act as if I was somehow perfect - I think that would
have been obvious to anyone who isn't defensive. Not perfect (not close)
but I do try to emulate the One that is.


Mike Marlow wrote:
Michael Joel wrote:


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)


Michael - you are not only a pompous XXX, but you are a heretic. Who in the
world do you thin you are by passing judgement on anyone else around you?
You sir, are a fool. "The difference is..."??? Who are you to define the
differences between your XXXX and that of others? You need to go back to
Bible School 101.

Judgment? I simply stated in plain English what is a fact that took
place in this discussion. How can you believe in "scientific *facts*"
when you can't even recognize the difference between judging someone for
what they haven't done - and stating something that *has happened*. This
is a perfect example of how "scientific" observation is so slanted.



While I am a "Pariah" because I try to go strictly by God's Word


By your chosen interpretation of what that word says... God forbid that you
might be wrong...


I am afraid you are wrong again. If I read -
"And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
woman commits adultery against her;"

It is not my interpretation to say if a man or woman divorces and
remarries they are sinning in committing adultery. It is other people's
interpretation to change it to allow for it.

So no - I try not to interpret - I try to read and accept. (as all True
Christians do. Christian: One who *follows* Christ. You can't be
Christian and then purposely pick and choose what you will accept from Him.)


instead - without interpreting It to fit my wants.


No - better stated "without interpreting it to fit what you want others to
believe". If you really were focused on what it said without regards to
your wants, you would not be so insistant on others seeing everything your
way. You have much to learn Grasshopper.


As said above - my words? Hardly. I simply repeated His Words. It isn't
me you have a problem with - it is His Words.


As I said - I do *not want* to force my beliefs on anyone.


You are measured by what you do - not by what you "say" you do. You need to
look more closely at your own preaching Michael.


Again - insinuations without evidence? Where have I forced? You change
definitions to fit your desire to attack someone for saying things you
dislike.



If you ever
want to bring the topic up again - feel free to.


Doubt there are many here who want to bring up yet another zealot
conversation - with you or anyone else. Believe it or not, many here are
blievers - they just do not want to deal with immature zealots in this
forum.


You do realize to just did everything you denigrated me for (claiming I
did it)?


I am not saying I fit into this category - but remember when people
treat others badly for simply repeating God's Word - they are fulfilling
what He said would happen.

Luke 6:22
"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and cast
insults at you, and spurn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of
Man. (NASB)



--
Michael Joel

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

On 3/1/2012 7:42 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
"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.

It's not religion so much as the assholes who practice it ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

We aren't? Damn! I gotta think about this. Does that mean I really
can't convince my wife to...

Must have gotten the intent of the above wrong. Sorry! Can I help out?
smile.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Michael Joel wrote:

snip more of Michael's justifications

No further comment.

Hope your woodworking efforts are going well. Post any further questions
you may have, or even any discoveries you may make which could benefit the
group.

--

-Mike-

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

We aren't? Damn! I gotta think about this. Does that mean I really
can't convince my wife to...

Must have gotten the intent of the above wrong. Sorry! Can I help
out? smile.

Geeze - I hope not. It's hard enough achieving success as it is, without
any competition!

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:21:19 -0500, clare wrote:

My guess is that a LOT of scientists in this field will find there is a
lot more "truth" to the biblical record than they are currently willing
to entertain. ( as have many archeologists and physical historians - as
places mentioned in the historical biblical records, foprmerly thought
to be ficticious, are found - and the basics - if not all the details,
are found to be historically accurate.)

Agreed. And I also agree that Jesus actually existed, or maybe I should
say there's a high probability that he did. Past that things tend to get
a bit disputable. You, and others, might want to read "The Mythmaker:
Paul and the Invention of Christianity" - there are lots of copies
available on ABE.

Note that I'm not saying the author is correct, just that his version is
at least plausible.

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

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 01:33:16 +0000, Han wrote:

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.

Believe me, he won't - they call it "blind faith" for a reason :-).

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

wrote in :

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??
^^^^^^^
You misspelled "hypocrisy".

On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:11:22 AM UTC-8, Leon wrote:

That cool air hitting the warm iron results in almost instant
condensation on the iron.

BUT a few years ago Swingman and I were working in his shop, it had
been quite warm. We had a cold front blow in suddenly at the end of
the day and the temperature dropped quickly. "Heavy" Condensation
formed on the iron machine surfaces with in minutes, something we do
not often see.

Why? I have no idea.

Did you have the windows open, it got cold (and the iron cooled down),
then you shut the windows and opened the doors to the rest of the humid,
warm house?


No windows, detached uninsulated garage, just a 16' garage door that had
been open all day and a rear side door that was open for the 3' fan to
create a breeze through the shop. At the end of the day the front blew
in and almost immediately, 10 minutes, "puddles" ow water formed on the
cast iron surfaces. I started wiping the water off of the first casulty,
;~) before Swingman noticed what was happening, he was still finishing
up with something on the TS. We both had to stop what we were doing to
wipe the surfaces off.

Now the iron might have gotten cold but this all happened in a matter of
a few minutes and the the whole shop cooled down before closing the doors.

It all was a bit freaky, I had never seen condensation form that quickly
in such a great quantity.



On Tuesday, February 14, 2012 5:11:22 AM UTC-8, Leon wrote:
On 2/14/2012 6:54 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 2/13/2012 7:50 AM, Leon wrote:
On 2/13/2012 7:12 AM, Han wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

That cool air hitting the warm iron results in almost instant
condensation on the iron.

Generally, warm and moist air hitting a cool surface is what cuases
condensation on the cool object. Cool air hitting a warm surface
does NOT give condensation.


Bull ****!

Sorry Han, To explain my response, and where I have witnessed your
second statement being not true "all of the time" is in Swingman's
shop.

I understand how the condensation principal works.

BUT a few years ago Swingman and I were working in his shop, it had
been quite warm. We had a cold front blow in suddenly at the end of
the day and the temperature dropped quickly. "Heavy" Condensation
formed on the iron machine surfaces with in minutes, something we do
not often see.

No windows, detached uninsulated garage, just a 16' garage door that had
been open all day and a rear side door that was open for the 3' fan to
create a breeze through the shop. At the end of the day the front blew
in and almost immediately, 10 minutes, "puddles" ow water formed on the
cast iron surfaces. I started wiping the water off of the first casulty,

It all was a bit freaky, I had never seen condensation form that quickly
in such a great quantity.

There was probably an abrupt change in air pressure (if air at high relative
humidity expands, its density goes down BUT the relative humidity goes
up). The result is that your ambient air in the shop was instantly
supersaturated, and the first nucleation site it found was on the iron.
Once the water film was established, the whole wet surface was a
fast growing dewdrop. Getting a dewdrop started (from near-zero
diameter), is energetically hard because of the surface tension that
acts to diminish the dewdrop diameter and return moisture to the
surrounding air. Waxing the iron makes the nucleation sites hydrophobic,
thus the dewdrop has to create the whole spherical surface
against surface tension.

There needn't be any important temperature change involved, in condensation.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:57:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:07:18 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above
paragraph? Note also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should
have made sense in the context of retired teachers making double
that.

I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
Salaries are a bit different in the two places.

Come on Larry - I have repeated stated that I am in Central NY. The big
city you speak of is Syracuse. We are very rural around here - we are not
NYC - note the use of NY and not the use of NYC. We are one of the lowest
income areas of our state. We probably are not so different from where you
live. Maybe you should not have assumed what "NY" meant...

The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.


But New York covers a lot of land that is FAR from the "east coast"
and about as "rural" as you could get. Real "hill-billy country" -

FWIW, the community I live in, if I displayed photos, most people would
classify as "suburban". I can walk 10 minutes in one direction and I'm
on a tobacco farm. I can walk 10 minutes the other way and I'm on a
dairy farm. In 2 hours driving I can be in one of the largest cities in
the world. So how do you classify the locality?

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:31:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:57:44 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:07:18 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:37:12 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Larry Jaques wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:45:34 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Were the parents Professors or school teachers? Profs make more.

Larry - please read... see the word "teachers" in the above
paragraph? Note also that my DIL started out at $45K. That should
have made sense in the context of retired teachers making double
that.

I did read but people use words carelessly, so I checked. So sue me.
I'm in a small, rural part of Oregon and you're over in the big city.
Salaries are a bit different in the two places.

Come on Larry - I have repeated stated that I am in Central NY. The big
city you speak of is Syracuse. We are very rural around here - we are not
NYC - note the use of NY and not the use of NYC. We are one of the lowest
income areas of our state. We probably are not so different from where you
live. Maybe you should not have assumed what "NY" meant...

The East Coast is one big city, as is the greater San Angeles area
here on the Left Coast. You've never been rural so you don't know.


But New York covers a lot of land that is FAR from the "east coast"
and about as "rural" as you could get. Real "hill-billy country" -

FWIW, the community I live in, if I displayed photos, most people would
classify as "suburban". I can walk 10 minutes in one direction and I'm
on a tobacco farm. I can walk 10 minutes the other way and I'm on a
dairy farm. In 2 hours driving I can be in one of the largest cities in
the world. So how do you classify the locality?
"rural residential" comes to mind. AKA "smalltown america". Lots of
"blink twice and you miss it" "towns" in America. Unincorporated
villages. Whistle stops, rural crossroads communities, former stage
stops, etc. And they are as common in the north east as they are in
the midwest heartland.

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:31:44 -0500, "J.

FWIW, the community I live in, if I displayed photos, most people would
classify as "suburban". I can walk 10 minutes in one direction and I'm
on a tobacco farm. I can walk 10 minutes the other way and I'm on a
dairy farm. In 2 hours driving I can be in one of the largest cities in
the world. So how do you classify the locality?

Protected by zoning! : )

Bill wrote:
On Sun, 4 Mar 2012 15:31:44 -0500, "J.

FWIW, the community I live in, if I displayed photos, most people
would classify as "suburban". I can walk 10 minutes in one
direction and I'm on a tobacco farm. I can walk 10 minutes the
other way and I'm on a dairy farm. In 2 hours driving I can be in
one of the largest cities in the world. So how do you classify the
locality?

Protected by zoning! : )

Huh?

The thing about rural is that zoning does not have the same definition as it
does in urban and suburban areas.

--

-Mike-

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.


Who writes this crap?