bencook2 wrote:

All will be reveiled in time.  Patience Grass Hopper.

I have all the evidence I need.  I am only explaining my religion. 

The main difference with me is that I believe religion is best taught FIRST by example.  Last by doctrine!  I would LOVE it if you believed what I believed.  That would satisfy so many "in group" yernings that psychology has taught me that we all have.  But I also believe that God is both benevolent and altruistic.  No vengence.  No anger.  God nor I need you to believe a GOD DAMNED thing.  Or un-damned.  You pick.

Leed by example.  Personal Responsibility!

Man it gets scarier and scarier, Ben and I have more in common every day. I'm going to have to go to an extra meeting of "Recovering Christian Conservatives Anonymous" this week and make sure I am staying on the wagon.

(Yes, I was a young Christian Conservative once upon a time...believe it or not)

raveneyes wrote:

I have to give you credit Ben.  You don't seem to want to force your beliefs, which I appreciate...it means the argument just becomes academic and not a matter of life or death.

This is why I respect but do not understand athiests.  With the state of organized religion it is NO wonder the world is in the shape it is in.  I think not believing in God is not fulfilling your potential.  Most athiests see believing in God as a short cut, or a bypass to learning and reason.  To quote my Muslim friends insha-allah.  If it is Gods will/God willing.  Athiest often believe that believers "cop out".  They
believe that education has taken the place of what God once explained.  In many cases that is true. 
Not in my case.  I believe that with much thought and learning the next logical progression is God.  The existence of something else.  With all the wonders of this mortal world why is it such a stretch to think that there is one more level?  What we discover today will pale to what we discover tomorrow.  The level we live in now will pale in comparison to the level we live in tomorrow.  As an educated man it makes perfect sense to me.

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Alas, it would seem that they won't be hearing about Global warming and Pirates in PA anytime soon. While this would seem to be a loss, at least it is an equal loss for all "creation science". Perhaps the philosophy courses can address his noodly appendage as well.

Or perhaps it can be taught in the home!

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:

I'm going to have to go to an extra meeting of "Recovering Christian Conservatives Anonymous" this week and make sure I am staying on the wagon.

(Yes, I was a young Christian Conservative once upon a time...believe it or not)

Take my Hummer.  I just filled it up with the money I made off the poor.  I hope you don't mind.  I just put a "I heart haliburton" bumper sticker on it!

area291 wrote:
Ben and Tim need to get a room...

No room needed. I do have to say that Ben is one of a very few who can debate religion and politics without getting heated and resort to name calling.  For that, he deserves respect of his opinions .... even though they are wrong

/Tim

area291 wrote:

Dude...she is hot.  I think I saw her in a por... uh...hmmm educational flick on the internet!

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:

Man it gets scarier and scarier, Ben and I have more in common every day. I'm going to have to go to an extra meeting of "Recovering Christian Conservatives Anonymous" this week and make sure I am staying on the wagon.

(Yes, I was a young Christian Conservative once upon a time...believe it or not)

Rich, I was raised Southern Baptist. It doesn't get much more scary than that!  Good luck at your RCCA meetings.  "Hello, my name is Rich.  I accept ID as my personal myth of the year."  *Chorus* Hi, Rich. 

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Alas, it would seem that they won't be hearing about Global warming and Pirates in PA anytime soon. While this would seem to be a loss, at least it is an equal loss for all "creation science". Perhaps the philosophy courses can address his noodly appendage as well.

What? No pirates? We have 'em in Oregon:

https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … 5e5cee57f4

bencook2 wrote:

Dude...she is hot.  I think I saw her in a por... uh...hmmm educational flick on the internet!

Yep.  I lived (in sin .... Load, forgive me, for I have sinned against you - said in my best Jimmy Swagert voice) with a Thai sweety when I lived in Thailand.  Damn, I was a changed man.  Can I get a wittness?  ID or Buddha did make 'em right over there in Asia.  Also the most peaceful and caring people I've ever met in the world.

If I get time, I'll scan her photo and post it - that was when I was shooting film. Back in the day.

/Tim

Tim Baker wrote:

Rich, I was raised Southern Baptist. It doesn't get much more scary than that!  Good luck at your RCCA meetings.  "Hello, my name is Rich.  I accept ID as my personal myth of the year."  *Chorus* Hi, Rich. 

I was raised a mix of Southern Baptist and Methodist (which is basicly diet Catholic, all the holidays...half the guilt!).

Marksora wrote:
I need cliff notes on this thread.

Go to either www.foxnews.com or www.conservativesareclueless.org. 

bencook2 wrote:

Dude...she is hot.  I think I saw her in a por... uh...hmmm educational flick on the internet!

Hey, get Ben's name off there. She's most likely poor and he'll just put her to work ... or deport her! 

Tim Baker wrote:
Hey, get Ben's name off there. She's most likely poor and he'll just put her to work ... or deport her! 

(She is actually not poor at all and is a very successful Los Angeles model and MUA!)

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Oh, and for the record I was raised Lutheran light, but until I was about 12-14 I was the most conservative kid you'd ever met. Then I started asking questions and it all went out the window.

Same for me, Rich. Amazing what happens when you question.  My best friend was Catholic ... was was studying to be a priest, of all things (I don't think he was into littel boys, so he may have been disqualified).  He said that in his first year the elder priests couldn't answer his questions and told him to stop asking so many questions. He said, if they can't answer them and this is the way they treat me, how will I answer them when asked and how should I treat my own flock?   He left the priest hood and never went back to his faith. /tim

BodyPainter Rich  wrote:
Color me agnostic I guess. But here is the thing...if you want your church philosophy taught to your children DO IT ON YOUR OWN TIME not on MY CHILD'S TIME. My child does not need a silent prayer moment to be mandated, my child does not need to be taught "alternative" theories of evolution, my child does not need to hear "Merry Christmas" at Wal-Mart, and my child does not need to be spanked into submission.

In my opinion my child does need to be taught other theories of evolution.  Does need to hear Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Rahmadan and else.  And if Wal-mart hires a Jewish Greeter I want him to feel safe and secure in the fact that I understand that he is wishing me well when he says "Happy Hanukkah"!

Learning an alternative creates understanding.  If we do our jobs at home our children will have understanding.  Heaven forbid they may even learn tolerance!  I don't think it is money well spent to teach NON-science in the schools.  And who is to say what is taught if you move to far off the science path?  Stick with science in science class.

area291 wrote:


(She is actually not poor at all and is a very successful Los Angeles model and MUA!)

Well then. I need to book a flight to LA!  As those southerners would say, "heck, she's purrty...heck, and I'm not even related to her!"  /t

area291 wrote:
Then there is only one answer.  Shut up.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Could you speak up?

area291 wrote:



(She is actually not poor at all and is a very successful Los Angeles model and MUA!)

Though all his life a fool associates with a wise man, he no more comprehends the Truth than a spoon tastes the flavor of the soup.

Fool = Tim

Wise man = Ben

Tim Baker wrote:

Well then. I need to book a flight to LA!  As those southerners would say, "heck, she's purrty...heck, and I'm not even related to her!"  /t

If she aint' good enough for her own...then I don't want her!

Tim Baker wrote:
Kickbox, when one says to me that they no longer care to debate with me, then that's it for me.  You're no longer on my radar, so to speak.  In another forum, perhaps, but not here.  With whom I debate is my choice, not yours.

Tam, if you don't wish to debate me, then don't. It's your choice to not post a reply.

Tim Baker wrote:
The OP does have the right to refocus the discussion, however no authority to deal with one who doesn't it, except to ignore him/her.  You're free to find another forum.

If I wish. Or not.

Tim Baker wrote:
I do not get defensive.  I enjoy an intellectual debate, and attempt to support my opinion with evidence that support my thesis.  I have yet to see you provide evidence of anything you say, other than your own opinion.

No, you do get defensive. You imagine that your opinion is somehow more 'valid' by Googling some links, but that in fact works against. It means that you are unable to sustain a logical argument without a crutch. You may think it makes you more credible, but it doesn't. It makes you look inadequate to debate.

Tim Baker wrote:
Regarding my posts, I could care less what you or anyone else thinks, unless my logic is based on a foundation other than sand.

Which it often is...

Tim Baker wrote:
I simply reply to what someone posts to me, drink my tea, read mail, pay bills, or return phone calls.  Comments made on MM or any other forum are nothing to get defensive about; and I don’t.

OK, add denial to defensiveness...

Tim Baker wrote:
The illusion of defense of internet posted material is nothing more than that which exists in the reader's mind.

That sentence simply does not parse.

Tim Baker wrote:
I've paid my dues in college. Regarding my education, I’m sorry if spending ten years learning offends you.

Offends me? Oh, no... not at all. It is the source of endless amusement.

Tim Baker wrote:
That is your issue to deal with, however, not mine.  I do teach a course in Research Methods for medical students.

I know, I know, you say that at every opportunity you get. It impresses nobody, and makes us all feel sorry for those poor students.

Tim Baker wrote:
I have to say that most of the time I read what you post and just shake my head in embarrassment (for you), considering how sophomoric you sound, apparently without understanding.

Yes, Tim. If it makes you feel better to lob some cheap, infantile insults, go ahead. It only adds to the pathos. And the amusement.

Tim Baker wrote:

Same for me, Rich. Amazing what happens when you question.  My best friend was Catholic ... was was studying to be a priest, of all things (I don't think he was into littel boys, so he may have been disqualified).  He said that in his first year the elder priests couldn't answer his questions and told him to stop asking so many questions. He said, if they can't answer them and this is the way they treat me, how will I answer them when asked and how should I treat my own flock?   He left the priest hood and never went back to his faith. /tim

I was raised until age 5 by grandparents who started out Baptist, and converted to Jehovah's witnesses (stop laughing).  Then I spent summers with my father who was still Southern Baptist, and winters with my mother who is agnostic.

I learned to ask questions quickly, held on to my beliefs for a long time, and even was headed for preaching work (won a preaching competition when I was 12(?)ish and gave sermons at the Baptist church and talks at the Jehovah's Witness hall)  Eventually I asked too many questions and got tired of the "God is the answer" answer.

kickfight wrote:
Happy holidays.

Really?  Your back?

kickfight wrote:

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Could you speak up?

Ah fight the good fight "kickfight", lol

Man...if your tactics were half as palatable as everyone else's we might actually get a good discussion going on around here....oh well

raveneyes wrote:
Man...if your tactics were half as palatable as everyone else's we might actually get a good discussion going on around here....oh well

EWWWW! You've been putting other people's tactics in YOUR MOUTH? Gross!!! Ya pervert, ya...

bencook2 wrote:
Really?  Your back?

I'm just sticking my leg out for Tim to stumble over again.

raveneyes wrote:

I was raised until age 5 by grandparents who started out Baptist, and converted to Jehovah's witnesses (stop laughing).  Then I spent summers with my father who was still Southern Baptist, and winters with my mother who is agnostic.

I learned to ask questions quickly, held on to my beliefs for a long time, and even was headed for preaching work (won a preaching competition when I was 12(?)ish and gave sermons at the Baptist church and talks at the Jehovah's Witness hall)  Eventually I asked too many questions and got tired of the "God is the answer" answer.

Out of all the faiths I have studied the Mormons are my favorite. (stop laughing)
Seriously, they honestly try to lead by example.  But they come in a close second to the Scientologists in so far as quickly moving from a hand shake to brain washing.  Their doctrine is pretty water tight as well.  Which is probably part and parcel of it being a "new" religion.  They had time to address some of the more pressing issues like why does a murdering Christian get to go to heaven but no Jews?  Answer...heaven is segregated!  The good mormons get to go to Celestial heaven...the rest fall in a few lower levels of heaven.  Some have to practice and try again.  God I love the mormons!!!!!  One of my best friends is mormon.  A model.  SOOOOOOO hot!
http://imaging-services.net/elliottweb/index.htm  These are not my photos of her!

Model and Mormon don't often get mentioned in the same sentence.

bencook2 wrote:
Model and Mormon don't often get mentioned in the same sentence.

You'd be surprised.  I find models hold some of the stranger belief systems of anyone other than 'actors'

The girl I mentioned in another thread who would only eat baby spinach...with her own fork and knife...and it had to be baby spinach she brought with her (she forgot her lunch one day and the producer bought her baby spinach from the store, and she wouldn't eat it)...yeah...she was either scientologist or mormon...I didn't get in to it with her.

raveneyes wrote:

You'd be surprised.  I find models hold some of the stranger belief systems of anyone other than 'actors'

The girl I mentioned in another thread who would only eat baby spinach...with her own fork and knife...and it had to be baby spinach she brought with her (she forgot her lunch one day and the producer bought her baby spinach from the store, and she wouldn't eat it)...yeah...she was either scientologist or mormon...I didn't get in to it with her.

Sounds Macro-biotic to me.  Those people are strange!

kickfight wrote:
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. Could you speak up?

Maybe I should send the champ to box your ears for a little cleaning...



Season's Beatings!

area291 wrote:
Maybe I should send the champ to box your ears for a little cleaning...

Oooh... that's the BIGGEST punching bag I've ever had! Thanks, area!

OK, technically not 'punching' bag, 'cuz it's the shins that knock out the teeth, but 'shinning bag' doesn't have the same ring to it...

Tim Baker wrote:
However, zero doesn't always mean nothingness.  Zero Celcius is the temperature at which water freezes at sea level.  That doe not mean there is no temperature; it's just another number on the Celcius scale (However, zero Kelvin does mean no temperature).  Cheers, Tim

Sigh.  I hate getting involved in these inane arguments on here.  This was originally a post about Intelligent Design.

In real life I'm an astrophysicist.  Tim, I hate to point this out but your statement above is incorrect.  Zero Kelvin is the lower bound of a given temperature scale in the universe.  It is 0°K, -273.15°C, or -459.67°F to most people.  Temperature is not a physical object but rather a measurement of the translational energy in a given system.  When all motion in an atom ceases, it has no translational energy which can be measured - ie, it is at 0°K - but that is STILL a "temperature".  Note too that this is an extrapolated state.  ie, there is no known way anything in the Universe can actually achieve absolute zero.  About as close as it gets is about 3°K. 

Likewise, the study of the Universe and its origins is a scientific pursuit.  You can claim our Universe was created by a God, and that's fine - but you are still left with the inevitable question: Where did God come from?  It always has been and always will be a circular argument.  To say that God simply exists does not answer the question.  Period.

As for teaching Intelligent Design in our classrooms, I against it.  That is up to various churchs to teach, not our schools.  If you think that is a problem, well...consider the fact that there are something like 5 times as many churches in this country as there are schools.  Plenty of *establishments* to teach alternate ideas about the Universe and its origins.

Think about it.

-Rowen

Rowen wrote:
In real life I'm an astrophysicist.

So what does that make you in unreal lfe?  Do you use a cyclotron for a photo studio?  And my roommate in college was an astrophysicist, he ate Life cereal with chocolate milk.  Is that normal for you guys?

These are far more perplexing questions and perhaps even the key to Intelligent Benign.

Rowen wrote:
Sigh.  I hate getting involved in these inane arguments on here.  This was originally a post about Intelligent Design.

In real life I'm an astrophysicist.  Tim, I hate to point this out but your statement above is incorrect.  Zero Kelvin is the lower bound of a given temperature scale in the universe.  It is 0°K, -273.15°C, or -459.67°F to most people.  Temperature is not a physical object but rather a measurement of the translational energy in a given system.  When all motion in an atom ceases, it has no translational energy which can be measured - ie, it is at 0°K - but that is STILL a "temperature".  Note too that this is an extrapolated state.  ie, there is no known way anything in the Universe can actually achieve absolute zero.  About as close as it gets is about 3°K.

*blink* OHMYGOD a REAL scholar, not just a poser wannabe! JOY!

OK, first, some disclosure: much of the 'inanity' you rightly identified stems from the banter between the puffed-up hot-air balloons who feel they *must* regurgitate barely-comprehended book-scraped data to make themselves look wise, and the reprehensible trolls (like moi) who make them twitch and dance on command by pulling their ever-so-exposed strings for fun and laffs.

So, speaking of strings, I do have a legitimate question (which, if you prefer, can be migrated to a separate thread) for an actual practicing person of science: what's your take on string theory?

kickfight wrote:

*blink* OHMYGOD a REAL scholar, not just a poser wannabe! JOY!

OK, first, some disclosure: much of the 'inanity' you rightly identified stems from the banter between the puffed-up hot-air balloons who feel they *must* regurgitate barely-comprehended book-scraped data to make themselves look wise, and the reprehensible trolls (like moi) who make them twitch and dance on command by pulling their ever-so-exposed strings for fun and laffs.

So, speaking of strings, I do have a legitimate question (which, if you prefer, can be migrated to a separate thread) for an actual practicing person of science: what's your take on string theory?

Are you twelve...or do you really see all of this as a pecker contest?

Dance Monkey Dance!

Rowen wrote:
Sigh.  I hate getting involved in these inane arguments on here.  This was originally a post about Intelligent Design.

In real life I'm an astrophysicist.  Tim, I hate to point this out but your statement above is incorrect.  Zero Kelvin is the lower bound of a given temperature scale in the universe.  It is 0°K, -273.15°C, or -459.67°F to most people.  Temperature is not a physical object but rather a measurement of the translational energy in a given system.  When all motion in an atom ceases, it has no translational energy which can be measured - ie, it is at 0°K - but that is STILL a "temperature".  Note too that this is an extrapolated state.  ie, there is no known way anything in the Universe can actually achieve absolute zero.  About as close as it gets is about 3°K. 

Likewise, the study of the Universe and its origins is a scientific pursuit.  You can claim our Universe was created by a God, and that's fine - but you are still left with the inevitable question: Where did God come from?  It always has been and always will be a circular argument.  To say that God simply exists does not answer the question.  Period.

As for teaching Intelligent Design in our classrooms, I against it.  That is up to various churchs to teach, not our schools.  If you think that is a problem, well...consider the fact that there are something like 5 times as many churches in this country as there are schools.  Plenty of *establishments* to teach alternate ideas about the Universe and its origins.

Think about it.

-Rowen

Rowen, I believe you are misreading my posts. Only on the Kelvin scale does absolute zero equal the lack of what you're measuring.  Sure you are 'measuring' temperature if you define zero degrees Kelvin to be temperature, but physically, by definition, temperature is a measure of the random agitation of matter and ambient photons, under the effect of thermal fluctuations (at least that's the definition I'm using).  Zero degrees Kelvin means no random agitation of matter (and ambient photons), thus no temperature.  On the Celsius temperature scale, however, zero is where water freezes at sea level but random agitation is still present.  It's still temperature and just another number on the scale we call the Celsius temperature scale.  Perhaps we're debating semantics here or have undefined, common definitions with which we're working.  /Tim

Edit: Ok, now I see your definition: Temperature is not a physical object but rather a measurement of the transactional energy in a given system.  When all motion in an atom ceases, it has no transactional energy which can be measured - ie, it is at 0°K - but that is STILL a "temperature". 

Rowan, if you're defining temperature as simply a 'measurement' then you are, indeed, correct.  If you define temperature as 'transactional energy' or (with my definition (agitation of matter - or the measurement of such) then there would be none at absolute zero.  We are debating semantics here.  Cheers.

bencook2 wrote:
Are you twelve...or do you really see all of this as a pecker contest?

Dance Monkey Dance!

OK, slowly put down the pipe... good. Give the baggie to the officer. Good! OK... now... what?

Tim Baker wrote:

Rowen, I believe you are misreading my posts. Only on the Kelvin scale does absolute zero equal the lack of what you're measuring.  Sure you are 'measuring' temperature if you define zero degrees Kelvin to be temperature, but physically, by definition, temperature is a measure of the random agitation of matter and ambient photons, under the effect of thermal fluctuations (at least that's the definition I'm using).  Zero degrees Kelvin means no random agitation of matter (and ambient photons), thus no temperature.  On the Celsius temperature scale, however, zero is where water freezes at sea level but random agitation is present.  It's still temperature and just another number on the scale we call the Celsius temperature scale.  Perhaps we're debating semantics here or have undefined, common definitions with which we're working.  /Tim

yea!  What he said!  I had a friend named Kelvin once.