>> > D from BC >> > Amateur smps designer. >> > British Columbia, Canada >> > Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
>> I already saw the answer, it was 4 billion in 1997 so today it's 4 billion >> and 12. But I've heard others claim it's 7 billion years old.
>> If today someone made a toothpick from wood that was 50 years old, would >> the >> toothpick be 50 years old or brand new just made today?
>> RogerN > / > /That is an interesting answer. > /
> I have an "Origins" idea that I think best fits the Biblical record and > scientific data. If we all evolved from some soup and some chemicals > joining together, then the odds of it happening would be incredibly low, but > perhaps it wouldn't be impossible.
We have no idea what the odds are, really.
I have seen it argued that since life seems to have evolved very early in Earths history, it could not have been that unlikely (otherwise it would have taken longer). But I don't know if that really holds together mathematically, it sounds suspect to me. Martin will know if he's still reading.
Here is a recent theory that indicates cellular life evolved twice:
> So what are the odds of a first life that could survive, reproduce, > mutate, and successfully evolve to all known life we have today? I > don't know but I think you would have a better change of buying 1 > lottery ticket a week and winning every week for 10 years.
Once you have a minimal self-replicating life form, "evolution by natural selection" takes care of the rest, that's the beauty of it.
> It's not impossible but not very likely... unless you could write > down the lottery numbers, go back in time and buy a ticket with the > winning numbers. If you could do that, then it would be easy to pick > the correct lottery numbers every time because you would know them > before they are picked. So, you would either need a flux capacitor > and a Delorian or you could be the time transcending eternal God of > the Bible.
We could be alone in the universe. Whatever total probability you arrive at, you have to multiply it by the - possibly infinite - number of planets in the universe. Even if the odds of the chain of events leading to us *was* as tiny as you descibe, we would still inevitably magically "find ourselves" on the one habitable planet there is.
> So, when God created, he could have picked the right "Numbers" (chemical > chains or whatever) for life to begin and evolve to every life form we have > today. Sort of like an electronic design or a computer. The designer of > the first microprocessor wouldn't have had to know that someday we would > have Windows 7, but he didn't just throw a handful of silicon and copper in > a box and shake it up either. In other words, the microprocessor was > intelligently designed to be a microprocessor and I also believe life was > intelligently designed to evolve into humans, if that's the way it happened. > Crazy? Maybe, but it's the best fit I've came up with.
There is something in this. The "numbers" of the universe are the values of some fundamental constants. ("Fundamental" in that we do not know yet what sets their value, because we have not figured it out yet).
The thing is, these numbers *do* seem incredibly fine tuned to allow the universe as we see it, and hence life. One possible explanation is that there are lots of universes with different values. An observer (us) will always "find themselves" in one conducive to life, as above.
<excretatau...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:24:21 -0700, D from BC wrote:
>> You are being watched 24/7 by a gigantic invisible pink kangaroo and you >> can't disprove it!
>If it's invisible, how can it be of any color?
>;-)
If enough people have faith it's pink ...then it's pink..
Similarly is enough people have faith that god is male...then god is male.
It's bullshit without evidence and only gains strength by the number of believers.
When more people believe in the gigantic invisible pink kangaroo then the ball will get rolling. When the number of believers becomes great enough then that will be taken as evidence that the GIPK must be true :P
D from BC Amateur smps designer. British Columbia, Canada Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
<excretatau...@invalid.invalid> wrote: >The accepted simple definition of a colored object is an object that >either transmits or reflects the components of the visible white light >spectrum differentially, some more than others. An invisible object would >have to be perfectly transparent to visible wavelengths, and it would >also reflect nothing, so would exhibit no color.
Since there is no such thing, any science you want to attempt to apply is more meaningless than the entire discussion was starting out.
>>>> This topic appears to have run out of steam. Thank God for that!!!!!
>>>Yeah, ( I still feel sorry for you guys though :-)
>>'The problem with faith, is that it really is a conversation stopper. >>Faith is a declaration of immunity to the powers of conversation. It >>is a reason, why you do not have to give reasons, for what you >>believe. ' >>Sam Harris
>>How old is the earth?
>>Enter # years here ___________________. >>D from BC >>Amateur smps designer. >>British Columbia, Canada >>Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
> 4.5 - 5 Billion Years old, from accretion time to now. It probably >took several million years to accrete.
> The *stuff* we, the Earth, and the other local media is made of is >about 13 Billion years old... From The Creator's Bang Time.
>There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians. >There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are >interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and >represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that >there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and >started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that >time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do >not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
>You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is >supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your >model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented >evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are >becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite >ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
What do you believe is the age of the earth?
D from BC Amateur smps designer. British Columbia, Canada Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
> >There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians. > >There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are > >interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and > >represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that > >there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and > >started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that > >time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do > >not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
> >You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is > >supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your > >model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented > >evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are > >becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite > >ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
> What do you believe is the age of the earth?
> D from BC > Amateur smps designer. > British Columbia, Canada > Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
D,
I already have answered this question on this thread.
Somehow in spite of the fact that you try so hard to be offensive, I find myself not disliking you. In looking at the history of your posts you are very unreasonable in many** of your arguments and quite ridiculous in trying to provoke a reaction from Christians. I do give you credit that you do not tend to get personal, even if you are extreme in your characterizations of the Christian faith.
<buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >I already have answered this question on this thread.
Just looking for numbers. When I see a pile of words, it's not as convincing.
>Somehow in spite of the fact that you try so hard to be offensive, I >find myself not disliking you. In looking at the history of your >posts you are very unreasonable in many** of your arguments and quite >ridiculous in trying to provoke a reaction from Christians. I do give >you credit that you do not tend to get personal, even if you are >extreme in your characterizations of the Christian faith.
> The accepted simple definition of a colored object is an object that > either transmits or reflects the components of the visible white > light spectrum differentially, some more than others.
Birds see colors that we can't. Dogs see fewer colors than we do, but they see more than black/white. Our primary colors, RGB, aren't primary colors for all animals.
> An invisible object would have to be perfectly transparent to visible > wavelengths, and it would also reflect nothing, so would exhibit no > color.
I think the mirrors on my walls are invisible objects.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:57:07 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:
>Genesis in the bible reads very different:
You do not get it. The bible DOES declare the big bang. That was the moment "God created light". There still was not yet any matter at that time.
Also, God's version of seven days is likely... VERY likely NOT Earth days.
More like "God Days".
And us? We are not the only little "man experiment" God has in the universe. If you think so, your arrogance is why Earth's "man" is so tragically flawed.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:07:57 -0700, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:57:07 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddr...@comic.com> >wrote:
>>Genesis in the bible reads very different:
> You do not get it. The bible DOES declare the big bang. That was the >moment "God created light". There still was not yet any matter at that >time.
But as per bible coloring book, Mr.God SkyDaddy of Universe Engineering Incorporated (UEI) first created the heaven and the earth and then AFterward babbled to himself ...'let there be light'..
So earth first then Bang afterward??? I suppose it's a miracle the Bang (light) didn't fry the earth.
1...2...3...
King James Genesis.' 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. '
> Also, God's version of seven days is likely... VERY likely NOT Earth >days.
> More like "God Days".
How about a God 7 days can mean 7pS which would be an impressive feat for a God worthy of worship.. 7 real days may impress desert goat herders 3000 years ago, however it seems a little slow considering that the earth can be nuked in a day.
> And us? We are not the only little "man experiment" God has in the >universe. If you think so, your arrogance is why Earth's "man" is so >tragically flawed.
People will never be as perfect as the gigantic invisible pink kangaroo. The gigantic invisible pink kangaroo is perfectly indetectable and perfectly leaves no evidence.
D from BC Amateur smps designer. British Columbia, Canada Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:32:22 -0700, The Great Attractor
<Sup...@ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote: >On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:09:54 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddr...@comic.com> >wrote:
>>So earth first then Bang afterward??? >>I suppose it's a miracle the Bang (light) didn't fry the earth.
>>1...2...3...
> Bang!... Matter (no light)... coalesce (THEN)...
The method was omitted in bible. Fill in the blank with anything you can imagine. God could have teleported matter into specific locations to fool everyone of an ancient universe.
> STAR (THEN)... LIGHT!
A Big Bang without photons! Amazing...:P I tremble in fear at such superiority. A God worthy of worship!
Short List of Bangs that Give off Light fireworks nuclear explosions supernovas
Short List of Bangs that Give off no Light Traffic accident Book falling on floor Slammed door Biblical big bang for creation of the universe?
> And in our case, THEN THAT star went BANG! and THEN our matter >coalesced into our Earth, around our new sun.
> To hear the Mayans tell it, there were three other stars before ours >and ours is the last.
The gigantic invisible pink kangaroo is more superior to God. The GIPK is so superior, it's impossible to know anything about it.
D from BC Amateur smps designer. British Columbia, Canada Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
<buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Oct 21, 10:45 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:00:35 -0700 (PDT), brent
>> <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >> >On Oct 18, 5:54 pm, don <don> wrote: >> >> brent wrote:
>> >> > So, In the end, all laws are the laws of men. What motivates men >> >> > to ;pick and choose their laws will be based on their idea of what >> >> > they think is right based on their understanding of god (or nature for >> >> > atheists).
>> >> I think you are really understanding the atheists point of view.
>> >> You are 100% correct "In the end, all laws are the laws of men."
>> >> This is the main crux of all theist and atheist arguments.
>> >> There is no god because its just man vs man.
>> >> And the use of a god figure is there to keep the week minded in line.
>> >> As long as those chose to keep a god figure in their lives, other men >> >> will subvert their meaning.
>> >> AS many have said here, and so many times before.
>> >> Believe what ever you like, just do not make laws based on your beliefs.
>> >> If the "Laws of man" are passed by a consensus of man, then those laws >> >> will be followed.
>> >> If however, men pass laws based on the "Laws of god" without consensus, >> >> there will be a fight, like the one here.
>> >> don
>> >> PS: I consider myself a "weak" atheist. Just don't push to far to the >> >> un-believable.
>> >I know there is not much more to discuss here, but all laws are based >> >upon beliefs. >> >So it is impossible to not make a law that incorporates peoples >> >beliefs. Those beliefs can be beliefs based upon scientific >> >reasoning, or based upon religious reasoning or a combination of >> >both. Most of our laws in the USA are based upon Christian reasoning, >> >and most atheists are just fine on most of the laws that have been >> >derived via Christian (or old testament bible reasoning as well). >> >All of the tort laws in this country are based on religious belief.
>> This is simply not true. Most actually involve strictly secular ideas >> about body injury, property, reputation, and privacy. And generally >> tend to be closer to Code Hammurabi rather than Xtian ideas.
>A quick glance from Wikipedia: >-------- >Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BC – 1750 BC) decreed that he was chosen by >the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law >code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the >exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of >righteousness in the land." >---------------- >Sounds like you need to call him Xrabi - LOL.
Oh gosh, now anyone who claims to hear some god is an xtian? That will be news to the xtian sects.
>This is your example of an atheist who you look up to . ROTFLMAO
I never claimed that Hammurabi was an atheist or that he was someone to look up to. I claimed that most (european/american) law is (relatively to xtians) secular and based on code Hammurabi.
That you bothered to try to twist this escapes me.
>> >Now >I'll bet the tort lawyers that do not like religion would not like >> >those "religious" laws removed.
>> >(Come to think of it, this religious person would like them revisited).
>Why can't you guys even say the word Christian. Is it really that >repugnant to you?
I have met (and dealt with for years) real through and through Christians; they are rare. For all the pretenders i use Xtian. No negativity involved, just discernment.
<kensm...@rahul.net> wrote: >On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >[....] >> However, as has >> been discussed on this thread in several places, as an atheist you >> need to not only reject Christianity, but also reject every >> explanation of life and the universe that includes god. That is a >> pretty tall order.
>Atheists only need to reject one different theory than the huge number >that you do. You, I assume, only believe one story of creation. This >means that you reject all the other sorts of gods and the one that >says "it happened without a God involved". Atheists accept that >theory but not the one you believe. This means that neither has a >taller order than the other.
>[.... moral rules ....]
>> > A careful observer can get there without any need for any religious >> > entanglements.
>> A careful observer? Is that what you are ? Of course a careful >> observer can get there with the NEED for religious entanglements too. >> This is the thing that you atheists slay me over. You refuse to >> believe that because someone comes to a different conclusion than >> you , after reviewing all the evidence, that they can some how be >> smart ( rather - a "careful observer")
>In this world there are those who say that we invented the pythagorean >theorem and other who say we discovered it. Those who say we >discovered it believe in an absolute math where it all exists without >us. The same different opinions can happen on moral issues. There >are absolutists and relativists among both the religious and atheist >community.
>Absolutist religious: >God knows all so he knows right from wrong and told us.
>Relativist religious: >God decided what rules there were and told us.
>Absolutist atheist: >Right and wrong like pythagorean theorem are discovered by people who >think about it.
>Relativist atheist: >Right and wrong are decided by society.
>> > Others have done so before me and illuminated my path. >> > If you are interested and have desire to learn this, i can refer you >> > to those that have prepared the way for any to explore.
>> I would love to see how many of these path illuminators that you speak >> of were atheists. Likely, the vast majority of them held to strong >> religious beliefs and were expressing their understanding of gods >> laws. I guess that because they were not Christian, then that puts >> them in the atheist camp with you?
>> Do you look at every one of these guys and reject them if they were >> not atheists? >> Or, do you get to learn from their wisdom , score them as atheists >> because they learned what they did apart from Christianity?
Go Moose, i find his tireless willful arrogant ignorance to be too much bother.
>> >> >>> The third reich was built on scientific philosphy. The master race >> >> >>> stuff is a natural philosophical conclusion when one accepts the >> >> >>> theory of evolution. The Soviet union and Communism in general is >> >> >>> underpinned on the philosophy that science can solve all of mans >> >> >>> problems.
>> >> >> Thats false. Evolution has nothing to do with the "master race". It >> >> >> is an excuse. A justification that people use. Just like bible >> >> >> thumpers justify their beliefs with the bible.
>> >> > You can easily dismiss it as false, but based on the discussion you >> >> > laid out below about hate and the desire to procreate and how all of >> >> > that is completely consistant with science and evolution, then the >> >> > master race stuff is a very logical position to take by a group of >> >> > people that want to dominate and optimize their power.
>> >> I'm not dismissing that they used it. But what your not understanding is >> >> that evolution says nothing at all about a "master" race. There is no >> >> science that has ever found any proof of that. This is why it is a >> >> justification. It is a way for people to pretend to have a valid argument >> >> for their position. Some might even believe it but it doesn't mean it's >> >> true.
>> >> For example, in politics today racism is used to justify why "republicans" >> >> do not go along with the left. It is a justification why they don't. It has >> >> nothing to do with fact. It is a way for the left to say "Hey, they don't >> >> agree with us and since we must be right the only conclusion is that they >> >> must be racists(else why would they not vote for obama or be behind him like >> >> we are)". Again, it is a "justification".
>> >> > This is a problem I have with atheists. They can so easily point out >> >> > the inconsistancies of religious people (IT is actually quite easy in >> >> > that religion tries to quantify what they actually believe), but when >> >> > very troubling conclusions pop out of the evolutionary philosophy - it >> >> > is simply dismissed. Real people , not too many years ago, have tried >> >> > to base their societies on what they thought was an honest >> >> > interpretation of science. We can see the results.
>> >> Well, I agree a little bit. But not all atheists are this way. Just like not >> >> all christians are bad. It's ignorance in both camps. But are you saying >> >> that every religious bases society has worked? This is surely false too.
>> >No, I am not saying that. We are still mostly the existence of god. >> >As you know I believe in the Christian interpretation of the existence >> >of God.
>> >> But a society based in pure science has very little for those human traits >> >> that most of us consider bad. Anger? What purpose is that? Love? Who needs >> >> it? If science is about understanding life(which it ultimately is) then the >> >> those things are irrelevant unless somehow they are required for >> >> science(which they happen to be... at least at the core).
>> >> Religion. What is it? It is a way to understand the world. But let me ask >> >> you. Has any of your knowledge about your religious beliefs been first hand? >> >> Or have they been passed down and learned from other humans(and only other >> >> humans). I know you have thought about it and had questions. But where di >> >> the answers come from? Answer this honestly too.
>> >I am well aware that I could not independently come up with a set of >> >beliefs.
>> Your limitations are not everybody else's.
>> >Christianity accepts the revelation of truth, so this is not >> >a big obstacle for me. But even without revelation, man has taken >> >thousands of years to get to where he is. And I do not mean >> >scientifically. Ideas about morals, property rights, obligations to >> >the king, restitution, these things could never be independently >> >learned in one generation.
>> Dead wrong again, just because you could not achieve it does not mean >> nobody else could. This is clear because others have.
>> >Where we are is based on traditions and >> >what I believe is referred to as "natural law". These are accepted as >> >absolute laws of society, but have required hundreds and hundreds of >> >years to fully understand. These laws are only discoverable through >> >the ups and downs, wars, peace, feast and famine of human experience. >> >They come with a high price, and it is why I have a high respect for >> >tradition.
>> Wrong again. Astute observation
>What the heck is "astute observation" This almost assumes that
>"if people were only smart enough they would all agree with me" >Who wins in a society were there is a vehement disagreement? The one >who has been more astute in their observations ? - LOL
The laughter of willful ignorance. The standard dictionary definitions apply.
>> and clear thinking >That is a real pompous thing to say. As if to imply all of Christian >society is not based on clear thinking?
Of course, it is based on unquestionable religious belief systems. By their own definitions.
>> has found religion unnecessary
>Your clear thinking (The kind that is incredibly smart)?
If you presume that the laws of reason do not exist, you err. Being "smart" has nothing to do with being able to learn them or use them. Only being exposed to them does. Independent rediscovery may require being "smart", but i do not see how or why.
>>ethics that very much matches the best ethics of all >> religions at their very best.
>Which 20th century atheistic society was that again? I will assume we >rule out Pol - Pot - LOL!
What diversion do you intend here? Trying to pillory an idea you do not like with an analogy that does not fit?
>> >> I agree. Science should be blind to such issues. But also scientists >> >> generally are paid by people who are not scientists. Also most scientists >> >> would not be scientists if they couldn't make money at it.
>> >This is where I get nervous about letting science have too big an >> >influence in things. Especially when the conclusions can be easily >> >politicized.
>> Per recent track record i am much more scared when politics dictated >> answers to scientists.
>Which is almost always when it comes to actual real policy (read , >actually affect people's lives in dollar terms) made by scientists >when they are discovering the truths about non-repeatable types of >things
What are you getting on about here? Are you talking non-repeatable things like climate change?
>> >> Another example along your line of thinking is race. It it should be clear >> >> to any scientist that their are racial differences. Very significant ones. >> >> This does not mean that any race is bad(because all races have potential and >> >> each race has it's pro's).
>> >> Yet you won't hear about this from scientists. Mainly because if a scientist >> >> were to analyze it scientifically he would not make it very far.
>> >Scientists are constrained by the prevailing cultural beliefs. The >> >conventional wisdom is that they are constrained by religious belief, >> >but it goes much much deeper than that. Even if religious belief were >> >completely eliminated, science would still be constrained by the >> >prevailing prejudices of society, and the scientists themselves would >> >mostly conform.
>> Wrong yet again. Particular example Einstein. The physics he >> produced flew in the face of his religious beliefs, and almost all >> conventional wisdom.
>The point I was trying to make is how I find it interesting that none >of the atheists here on sed find anything they believe about science >to lead them to some troubling logical or ethical dilemmas about other >areas of life. You have all found a perfectly self contained and >perfectly consistent model about how life works - no dilemmas , no >contradictions.
I can't speak for any others, but i keep finding potential solutions i would like to try. Proper use of reason can detect incorrectly framed questions, which is the source of the vast majority of ethical dilemmas. Try working at learning reason, you too may find incorrectly framed questions.
> I actually find this stunning. >You guys are all either that good, or that deluded or you just refuse >to acknowledge and chink of weakness as you argue here on sed.
I never claimed that i was "all that good", that is words you are putting in my and others mouths. Like others here i claim to make products that work as desired. Engineering artifacts if you will. What do you produce?
>> >> >> > But you guys really cannot think outside the box. Your intellectual >> >> >> > powers are not as great as you believe them to be.
>> >> >> You've blabbered on enough, brent. Time for you to get outside the box. >> >> >> Tell us how that unbridled imagination that you're so proud of has led >> >> >> you anywhere. You _never_ give examples. Show us something.
>> >> >I do not consider myself mentally superior to someone based upon my >> >> >belief system versus their belief system. I believe that when two >> >> >rational people look at similar evidence and come to different >> >> >conclusions, then faith is likely involved for both parties in drawing >> >> >their conclusions.
>> >> >But to answer your question, here is some stuff that I work on in my >> >> >spare time to try to explain difficult engineering ideas. Be careful >> >> >in going through the website, because it was created by someone who >> >> >believes in Jesus Christ.
>> >> Checked it. Not very good. Fails in its announced goals.
>> >Well, I was not asking you to evaluate here (but I did appreciate the >> >comments you made a few weeks ago). I produced it because Beryl >> >demanded that I show him something that indicates that I can think in >> >general, and outside the box in particular. But I suppose that he >> >can take your word on it and dismiss it now. You have likely provided >> >him irrefutable evidence that it does not indicate any "outside the >> >box" thinking. LOL!
>> Consistency error.
>Email received today: >------------------------------------------- >Brent,
>I want to congratulate you on a great piece of work to demystify the >Fourier Series and Fourier Analysis! Your interactive Flash Programs >and your audio explanations have helped me tremendously to learn some >basics and then translate them into practice.
>I am a 67 year old "Student" who likes to chase mathematical >curiosities and thus to rectify my poor study habits of many years >ago. Actually I do have some personal quests where I am trying to >understand the periodic nature of events. I use MS Excel and the add- >in FFT tool to deconvolute the data but I never understood how to use >it, or understand it. Your tutorial has helped a lot.
>Please keep up the good work.
>[name with held] >----------------------------------------- >another received a bit ago: >---------------------------------------- >Brent,
>Thanks a ton for your effort. You get an A+ on your teaching >evaluation!
>I needed a good refresher, and succinct it was! You earned the title >"Docere"
>If you ever need help call.
>Thanks again for your hard work! >[name with held] >--------------------------------
>I receive approximately 1 email like this per week. Several , >including the second one above, from people who identify themselves as >having doctorate level degrees.
>approximately 30 people per day open up my stuff on smith charts and >about 8 people per day go through all five programs. It is similar >numbers for the Fourier series stuff. Its a lower for the new fourier >transform stuff I just recently put up.
>Different people can look at the same evidence and come to different >conclusions.
>I think the difference is that the people who know they do not know >the material and get stuck in textbooks are not as picky about certain >things as you are. Perhaps you are not motivated to learn or you >already know the material.
And any of this is supposed to mean something to me? Do yourself a favor and improve your FFT thing in the ways joseph2k proposed why don't you?
<buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Oct 21, 7:01 am, John Devereux <j...@devereux.me.uk> wrote: >> brent <buleg...@columbus.rr.com> writes: >> > On Oct 21, 6:41 am, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote: >> >> "D from BC" <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote in messagenews:iu1td51fp1us2k4qgp9oj0geaa13bj3o5u@4ax.com...
>> >> > On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:00:11 -0500, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>Sad story, Today on October 20th, Hank Hanegraaff kicks the living dog >> >> >>crap >> >> >>out of Richard Dorkins and his sack of crap books he sells to the weak >> >> >>minded atheists of our day.
>> >> >>http://www.equip.org/broadcasts The MP3 wasn't available at the posting >> >> >>but >> >> >>should be their soon. Warning, not for the weak, to see Dawkins get the >> >> >>crap kicked out of him and tuck his tail and run yelping is a sad thing, >> >> >>but >> >> >>he deserves it.
>> >> >>RogerN
>> >> > How old is the earth?
>> >> > D from BC >> >> > Amateur smps designer. >> >> > British Columbia, Canada >> >> > Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
>> >> I already saw the answer, it was 4 billion in 1997 so today it's 4 billion >> >> and 12. But I've heard others claim it's 7 billion years old.
>> >> If today someone made a toothpick from wood that was 50 years old, would the >> >> toothpick be 50 years old or brand new just made today?
>> >> RogerN
>> > That is an interesting answer.
>> He could have created the earth 6006 years ago - or however old it is >> supposed to be - complete with a meticulously faked 4-billion year old >> geologic and evolutionary record.
>> So what are we supposed to believe? The story told by the wonder of gods >> creation and deduced by the minds god gave us or the story told in the >> bible?
>> Either way isn't the implication that god is a liar?
>> --
>> John Devereux
>There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians. >There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are >interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and >represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that >there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and >started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that >time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do >not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
>You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is >supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your >model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented >evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are >becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite >ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time, why don't you?
>>There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians. >>There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are >>interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and >>represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that >>there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and >>started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that >>time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do >>not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
>>You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is >>supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your >>model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented >>evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are >>becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite >>ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
>Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might >believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New >Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time, >why don't you?
imo..the bible is not readable. Example: Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
What good is book when read one thinks ' What!? Huh? wtf?'
D from BC Amateur smps designer British Columbia, Canada Posted to sci.electronics.design
>>>There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians. >>>There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are >>>interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and >>>represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that >>>there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and >>>started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that >>>time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do >>>not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
>>>You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is >>>supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your >>>model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented >>>evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are >>>becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite >>>ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
>>Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might >>believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New >>Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time, >>why don't you?
>imo..the bible is not readable. >Example: >Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. >And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
>What good is book when read one thinks ' What!? Huh? wtf?'
>D from BC >Amateur smps designer >British Columbia, Canada >Posted to sci.electronics.design
You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect anybody to have the same opinion.
Not that i will ever defend any religious text much. I may from time to time ask for honesty when reading them.
"JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might >>>believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New >>>Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time, >>>why don't you?
>>imo..the bible is not readable. >>Example: >>Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. >>And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
>>What good is book when read one thinks ' What!? Huh? wtf?'
>>D from BC >>Amateur smps designer >>British Columbia, Canada >>Posted to sci.electronics.design
>You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect anybody to have >the same opinion.
Who claims to understand the bible 100%? What % of the bible is understood by Christians? If 5%-10% of the bible is understood by Christians, it's not a useful book.
>Not that i will ever defend any religious text much. I may from time >to time ask for honesty when reading them.
I wouldn't expect honestly from the bible. At worst, it could be all lies just to serve one purpose... Obedience. It's all about obedience. Obey this, obey that. God wants this and God wants that. Behave you monkey animal! or Mr. Magic God will send a feathered angel to spank your intelligently designed ass.
>>>>Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might >>>>believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New >>>>Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time, >>>>why don't you?
>>>imo..the bible is not readable. >>>Example: >>>Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. >>>And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
>>>What good is book when read one thinks ' What!? Huh? wtf?'
>>>D from BC >>>Amateur smps designer >>>British Columbia, Canada >>>Posted to sci.electronics.design
>>You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect anybody to have >>the same opinion.
>Who claims to understand the bible 100%? >What % of the bible is understood by Christians? >If 5%-10% of the bible is understood by Christians, it's not a useful >book.
Inglory be. You are kind of hearing what i am trying to get across. From my perspective only about 1% of (sogenanten) xtians read or understand more that a few phases of the new testament, let alone the whole bible.
>>Not that i will ever defend any religious text much. I may from time >>to time ask for honesty when reading them.
>I wouldn't expect honestly from the bible. >At worst, it could be all lies just to serve one purpose... Obedience. >It's all about obedience. Obey this, obey that. > God wants this and God wants that. > Behave you monkey animal! or Mr. Magic God will send a feathered >angel to spank your intelligently designed ass.
Try reading the bible instead of spouting off about it. It does NOT say what you claim. I found out the easy way, i read it.
"JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 02:14:57 -0800, D from BC ><myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:52:56 -0800, >>"JosephKK"<quiettechb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might >>>>>believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New >>>>>Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time, >>>>>why don't you?
>>>>imo..the bible is not readable. >>>>Example: >>>>Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. >>>>And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
>>>>What good is book when read one thinks ' What!? Huh? wtf?'
>>>>D from BC >>>>Amateur smps designer >>>>British Columbia, Canada >>>>Posted to sci.electronics.design
>>>You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect anybody to have >>>the same opinion.
>>Who claims to understand the bible 100%? >>What % of the bible is understood by Christians? >>If 5%-10% of the bible is understood by Christians, it's not a useful >>book.
>Inglory be. You are kind of hearing what i am trying to get across. >From my perspective only about 1% of (sogenanten) xtians read or >understand more that a few phases of the new testament, let alone the >whole bible.
Joke: xtians = Christians + X-Files Spooky Christian stuff with spooky mysteries using spooky language.
>>>Not that i will ever defend any religious text much. I may from time >>>to time ask for honesty when reading them.
>>I wouldn't expect honestly from the bible. >>At worst, it could be all lies just to serve one purpose... Obedience. >>It's all about obedience. Obey this, obey that. >> God wants this and God wants that. >> Behave you monkey animal! or Mr. Magic God will send a feathered >>angel to spank your intelligently designed ass.
>Try reading the bible instead of spouting off about it. It does NOT >say what you claim. I found out the easy way, i read it.
REally.... Who claims that reading desert goat herder philosophy and tall tales written in 1611 english has radically changed/improved/enriched their lifes? Modern books on 'the human experience' are easier to read, backed by evidence, written by scientists and researchers hopefully following protocols to keep the bullshit factor low. What controlled the bullshit factor for the bible? Nobody lied? People lie for attention,profit,control and gain. How can you trust the bible when people are liars? 3000 years ago it was easy to be a liar. People barely knew anything 3000 years ago.
