# Self Identification - how far can this go?



## mzgarden

Rachel Dolezal was white but identified as being black. âFor me, how I feel is more powerful than how I was born. ...... âIf somebody asked me how I identify, I identify as black. Nothing about whiteness describes who I am.â

Elizabeth Warren identifies as being Native American, Harvard Crimson: "Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native America"

The new explosion of people that self identify as were born male or female (Chromosomally & plumbing-wise) and have not had gender reassignment surgery but self identify differently.

Perhaps others could self identify as 72+ years old, while the birth certificate indicates only 60 - to get Social Security benefits early? To prevent this would be age-discrimination, wouldn't it?

How far do you think this can go where people can self-identify differently than science supports to achieve whatever personal goals they have?


----------



## painterswife

Self identification for the purpose of being your true self is very different then self identifying for the sole purpose of getting something. Very easy to tell apart and only your business if they are trying to take something from you.


----------



## FarmerKat

mzgarden said:


> Rachel Dolezal was white but identified as being black. âFor me, how I feel is more powerful than how I was born. ...... âIf somebody asked me how I identify, I identify as black. Nothing about whiteness describes who I am.â
> 
> Elizabeth Warren identifies as being Native American, Harvard Crimson: "Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native America"
> 
> The new explosion of people that self identify as were born male or female (Chromosomally & plumbing-wise) and have not had gender reassignment surgery but self identify differently.
> 
> Perhaps others could self identify as 72+ years old, while the birth certificate indicates only 60 - to get Social Security benefits early? To prevent this would be age-discrimination, wouldn't it?
> 
> How far do you think this can go where people can self-identify differently than science supports to achieve whatever personal goals they have?


And that is why I sometimes feel that we live in a twilight zone ...


----------



## bluemoonluck

I self-identify as a Billionaire, so I should be allowed to bounce checks to buy whatever I want....to prosecute me would be to deny me my right to be who I am inside 

The percentage of people who HONESTLY identify as a gender that doesn't match their plumbing is incredibly low. And if race doesn't matter, than we should just drop all the identifiers and just call everyone a human....no need to specify if you identify as black, or Chinese, or whatever IMO.

This whole thing is just BS designed by the PTB to distract us from what's going on in our country right now.


----------



## Darren

We are in a twilight zone. Lots of stuff no longer bears a resemblance to reality.


----------



## mzgarden

painterswife said:


> Self identification for the purpose of being your true self is very different then self identifying for the sole purpose of getting something. Very easy to tell apart and only your business if they are trying to take something from you.


PW, I think I need some help to understand your point. Could you use the quote I shared from Rachel Dolezal and, using that as the example, clarify your point? To my perspective, it appears that by identifying publicly as black, she was helped in her activities with NAACP and her teaching position. Not to say if she had identified as white it would not have been possible, but it does appear (since she lost those roles when she was confirmed to be white, not black) that idenifying as black was helpful to her. Seems possibly someone else might have had either or both of those roles, had she not been there. 

Can you explain how it was very easy to tell apart and only her business?


----------



## painterswife

mzgarden said:


> PW, I think I need some help to understand your point. Could you use the quote I shared from Rachel Dolezal and, using that as the example, clarify your point? To my perspective, it appears that by identifying publicly as black, she was helped in her activities with NAACP and her teaching position. Not to say if she had identified as white it would not have been possible, but it does appear (since she lost those roles when she was confirmed to be white, not black) that idenifying as black was helpful to her. Seems possibly someone else might have had either or both of those roles, had she not been there.
> 
> Can you explain how it was very easy to tell apart and only her business?


She used her self identification to get something she had no right to. That is wrong. She should be able to self identify all she wants as long as she does not take things she has no right to.


----------



## mzgarden

Thank you. I understand now your position.


----------



## Miss Kay

Used to, people who were screwed up or had issues sort of kept it to themselves. Today, it is apparently cool to be confused. 

My husband says everyone has issues of some sort, we just don't see it. It reminds me of that saying, "everyone seems normal until you get to know them,"


----------



## Shine

Either reality just signed a contract for Cable TV or people are stretching the envelope beyond its capacity. You have to stand back and look at the overall picture to determine if this fits some sort of pattern. 

As one observation, saying that Christian Morality is being allowed to exist without restriction would be a lie and to further understand that many of these new revelations go against that practice is to see that there is a valid premise that there is an underlying intent to push against that form of morality.

Otherwise, it appears to be the evolution of the old "If it feels good, do it" phrase from the hippy era...


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> She used her self identification to get something she had no right to. That is wrong. She should be able to self identify all she wants as long as she does not take things she has no right to.


I am confused. She can self identify as black, but, she is not entitled to any of the rights and privileges that go along with being black? Would that not be the same as restricting the access, of those born male who self identify as female, from the rights and privileges of being female?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> I am confused. She can self identify as black, but, she is not entitled to any of the rights and privileges that go along with being black? Would that not be the same as restricting the access, of those born male who self identify as female, from the rights and privileges of being female?


Entertaining. What special rights do females and people of color have in this country?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Entertaining. What special rights do females and people of color have in this country?


You eluted to the case of the persons of color when you accused the white woman, who self-identified as black, got things that she hadn't the right. You seemed to indicate that, since she was not "really" black, she had no business taking those jobs out from under a "real" black person. 

There are quotas that tend to favor women and minorities. Also, until recently, women had separate restrooms.


----------



## TnAndy

My white nephew had a bad case of BFF......Black Folk Fascination. Droopy drawers, hat on backwards, "dese, dis, dem, dose" .....I finally looked across the dinner table one day and broke it to him..."You're white.....and we don't speak "Dinglish" here.

He later married a black gal and is quite happy with his "d"elusion.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> You eluted to the case of the persons of color when you accused the white woman, who self-identified as black, got things that she hadn't the right. You seemed to indicate that, since she was not "really" black, she had no business taking those jobs out from under a "real" black person.
> 
> There are quotas that tend to favor women and minorities. Also, until recently, women had separate restrooms.


Taking something that is someone else's is not the same as having special rights even if I used that wording. I thought that was apparent. 

Bathrooms and quotas are not rights.


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Entertaining. What special rights do females and people of color have in this country?


Does Melissa Click think she wouldn't have been fired if she was a Black woman. 

&#8220;This is all about racial politics,&#8221; Click says in a lengthy and sympathetic profile in The Chronicle of Higher Education. &#8220;I&#8217;m a white lady. I&#8217;m an easy target.&#8221;
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/25/melissa-click-i-was-fired-because-im-white/#ixzz46x0nqw5K
​


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Taking something that is someone else's is not the same as having special rights even if I used that wording. I thought that was apparent.
> 
> Bathrooms and quotas are not rights.


They would fall under the "Privileges" then, although privacy is a right enumerated in the Constitution.

What did the lady take from someone else? She was hired, was she not?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> They would fall under the "Privileges" then, although privacy is a right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> What did the lady take from someone else? She was hired, was she not?


What does privacy have to do with anything. 

She lost her job because she lied not about her skin color. If it was about her skin color she could have sued.


----------



## mzgarden

PW, above you said:
"_She used her self identification to get something she had no right to. That is wrong. She should be able to self identify all she wants as long as she does not take things she has no right to_."

I understood this to mean:
_She used her self identification_ (I feel black, white does not describe me)
_to get something she had no right to_. 

I understood your point to be indicating that _she got something something_ by self identifying as black, _which she had no right to._ You indicated _it was wrong_. 

Aren't you saying that this '_something_' was the unique privilege of someone that is not white?


----------



## Bubba1358

painterswife said:


> Entertaining. What special rights do females and people of color have in this country?


Uhhh... the women's restroom?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

I haven't changed, still Batman and I'm not changing for anyone. Unless of course I see the Bat Signal in the sky, then I put on the required crusader cape.


----------



## painterswife

She claimed struggles and history that was not hers. That had nothing to do with special privileges.


----------



## painterswife

Bubba1358 said:


> Uhhh... the women's restroom?


What special right to privacy does anyone have when they use a public restroom? They are already peeing in a stall next to someone. There is no right that it be someone of the same sex.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> What special right to privacy does anyone have when they use a public restroom? They are already peeing in a stall next to someone. There is no right that it be someone of the same sex.


 So, a construction, worker with a beard down to his knees, can just walk into any woman's public restroom and get to peeing?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> So, a construction, worker with a beard down to his knees, can just walk into any woman's public restroom and get to peeing?


I don't have a problem with it as long as he is using a stall and not a sink to pee in.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> She claimed struggles and history that was not hers. That had nothing to do with special privileges.


If she self ID's as black and was able to convince everyone of same, would she not be subject to the same "struggles" as all black people?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I don't have a problem with it as long as he is using a stall and not a sink to pee in.


 
Others may have a problem with it.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> If she self ID's as black and was able to convince everyone of same, would she not be subject to the same "struggles" as all black people?


Maybe you should do some research about that before you assume.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Others may have a problem with it.


Others have problems with women doing certain jobs or people of color.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Maybe you should do some research about that before you assume.


That was not an assumption, that was a question.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Others have problems with women doing certain jobs or people of color.


 Not the same. If a restroom door is marked "women" one can make the reasonable assumption that our male construction worker will not be allowed to enter and use the facilities. In other words, a women, using that restroom, has the right and expectation of privacy.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> That was not an assumption, that was a question.


I think the news stories proved that to not be true in her situation.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Not the same. If a restroom door is marked "women" one can make the reasonable assumption that our male construction worker will not be allowed to enter and use the facilities. In other words, a women, using that restroom, has the right and expectation of privacy.


Privacy from men only is not a right.


----------



## mzgarden

PW, I'm sorry. I'm confused again.
You said, "She used her self identification to get something she had no right to. That is wrong."
and later you said, "She claimed struggles and history that was not hers. That had nothing to do with special privileges."

What was the something you referred to in the earlier post (blue font above) that she got through her wrong self identification?


----------



## dixiegal62

painterswife said:


> Entertaining. What special rights do females and people of color have in this country?


Being a female business owner helps me get government contracts. If I where male and claimed to be female when bidding and on contracts it would be an unfair advantage would it not?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Privacy from men only is not a right.


Says who? Are we not entitled to privacy from those whom we want to exercise that right? Would not a sign that states "women" on the door provide some assurances that Big Bill Construction Worker, would not be allowed to enter? If a woman wants to exercise that right to privacy and retreats to a place designed for women exclusively, should she not expect that level of privacy?


----------



## logbuilder

dixiegal62 said:


> Being a female business owner helps me get government contracts. If I where male and claimed to be female when bidding and on contracts it would be an unfair advantage would it not?


By being granted some sort of preference during the contracting process based on you being a female _is an unfair advantage_. Why don't you just compete on the basis of the quality, value and cost of your services. The gender of the owner has nothing to do with the ultimate delivery of the contracted services.


----------



## Farmerga

dixiegal62 said:


> Being a female business owner helps me get government contracts. If I where male and claimed to be female when bidding and on contracts it would be an unfair advantage would it not?


 Minorities enjoy the same privilege.

I actually have sub Saharan African blood flowing through my veins. (DNA verified), that means that I am, likely, descended from black slaves. So, I do share the history of African Americans. Of course, my almost total lack of melanin and my blonde hair precludes me from those lucrative contracts.


----------



## dixiegal62

logbuilder said:


> By being granted some sort of preference during the contracting process based on you being a female _is an unfair advantage_. Why don't you just compete on the basis of the quality, value and cost of your services. The gender of the owner has nothing to do with the ultimate delivery of the contracted services.


I didn't make the law. When signing the contract I have to have a form notarized stating I'm male or female and how many minorities I'm employing. Payment for services can't be given until I have supplied all the required paperwork. I agree that gender has nothing to do with being able to do the job well.


----------



## painterswife

mzgarden said:


> PW, I'm sorry. I'm confused again.
> You said, "She used her self identification to get something she had no right to. That is wrong."
> and later you said, "She claimed struggles and history that was not hers. That had nothing to do with special privileges."
> 
> What was the something you referred to in the earlier post (blue font above) that she got through her wrong self identification?


She was dishonest about her history in a way as to gain herself a position. It was that dishonesty that is the problem. She did not experience the struggles she said she did because of her self identification. She claimed to be the target of hate claims and used that as a springboard to advance herself in the black community.

She used things that did not happen to her to ingratiate herself in a community that helped her get her position.

Living something and just claiming it are two different things.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Says who? Are we not entitled to privacy from those whom we want to exercise that right? Would not a sign that states "women" on the door provide some assurances that Big Bill Construction Worker, would not be allowed to enter? If a woman wants to exercise that right to privacy and retreats to a place designed for women exclusively, should she not expect that level of privacy?


Do you have a right to check someones sex organs to see if they are the sex you believe they are? I don't think public places are allowed to discriminate based on sex.


----------



## logbuilder

dixiegal62 said:


> I didn't make the law. When signing the contract I have to have a form notarized stating I'm male or female and how many minorities I'm employing. Payment for services can't be given until I have supplied all the required paperwork. I agree that gender has nothing to do with being able to do the job well.


I get it and don't fault you for using the system to your advantage. That's business. I just wish the system wasn't tilted to the advantage of one tribe vs another.

Over my career, I've worked as a purchasing agent for 2 Fortune 500 companies with annual spend under my control into the 10s of millions. We didn't use gender or minority status as a evaluation criteria. Rather, the business terms formed the deal.

If two deals were *exactly* the same on business terms, then I _might_ could see how giving the contract to a minority group would be the right thing to do. However, I seldom saw proposals that were equal among competitors. There was always something different in regards to business terms and/or deliverables.


----------



## bluemoonluck

Well if they want to do away with women's rooms and men's rooms and just label every bathroom Unisex, that's fine. But as long as they're calling them "Women" and "Men", I think only people who identify as that gender should be allowed in there, as there is a reasonable expectation that others are also entering who are also identifying as that gender (if that makes sense). If I see a bathroom labelled Unisex, I'd know up front that I could encounter both men & women so I could be prepared.

We've been using the bathroom next to transgendered people our whole lives, we just never knew it :shrug:. If there is a trans woman in the bathroom who needs toilet paper I'll pass her some, if she's sick I'll hold her hair, if she needs someone to zip her back into her dress I'll help & tell her how awesome she looks today. 

The number of truly transgendered people in the USA is extremely small - with most scientific estimates coming in at under 1% of the population (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/u...imate-of-the-transgender-population.html?_r=0). Rational people understand that people who identify as trans do their best to "look the part" of whatever gender they identify as, which is why we haven't noticed in the past if they use the bathroom for the gender they identify as. So we have an extremely small portion of the population here that conceivably to observers are in the appropriate bathroom by appearance.... why do we need a law giving them the right to use the bathroom they've been using for years? It's not like we're suddenly passing laws that all bathrooms must have a plumbing monitor who checks everyone on their way into the restroom or something 

And maybe my perspective is skewed, but survivors of sexual assault (who greatly outnumber the trans population) need to know who's invited into places where we're vulnerable, like dressing rooms & bathrooms. If a bathroom is labelled Unisex I know that if I'm having a bad day I need to find somewhere else to potty. If it's labelled Women, I need to know that there won't be a bunch of burly bearded guys in there peeing thru the cracks in the stall doors. And yes, it absolutely does make a difference to us if it's another woman or a man, if only from a psychological standpoint. I don't want my kids to witness me having a complete PTSD attack in the restroom because there's some clearly masculine man standing outside of the stall door when I walk out.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Do you have a right to check someones sex organs to see if they are the sex you believe they are? I don't think public places are allowed to discriminate based on sex.


 Public restrooms are, indeed, allowed to allow/disallow based on sex as long as both choices are available. Just as I am not allowed to enter an "Employees only" section of my local grocery store, as I am not an employee so to I am not allowed to enter the women's restroom as I am not a woman. 

I had a buddy who looked much older than he was, he was easily able to purchase beer when he was 17 years old. Should we do away with the limits on age for purchase of booze simply because the occasional person can slip through the cracks? He was never caught, does that make what he did the good and smart thing to do?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Public restrooms are, indeed, allowed to allow/disallow based on sex as long as both choices are available. Just as I am not allowed to enter an "Employees only" section of my local grocery store, as I am not an employee so to I am not allowed to enter the women's restroom as I am not a woman.
> 
> I had a buddy who looked much older than he was, he was easily able to purchase beer when he was 17 years old. Should we do away with the limits on age for purchase of booze simply because the occasional person can slip through the cracks? He was never caught, does that make what he did the good and smart thing to do?


I agree that most people of the opposite sex should not really be using a clearly marked sex identified restroom in most circumstances at this point in time. I don't think that goes for people who have transitioned or who are going through the transition. 

That however does not mean there are rights to privacy in public restrooms that extend past the stall.


----------



## Farmerga

bluemoonluck said:


> Well if they want to do away with women's rooms and men's rooms and just label every bathroom Unisex, that's fine. But as long as they're calling them "Women" and "Men", I think only people who identify as that gender should be allowed in there, as there is a reasonable expectation that others are also entering who are also identifying as that gender (if that makes sense). If I see a bathroom labelled Unisex, I'd know up front that I could encounter both men & women so I could be prepared.
> 
> We've been using the bathroom next to transgendered people our whole lives, we just never knew it :shrug:. If there is a trans woman in the bathroom who needs toilet paper I'll pass her some, if she's sick I'll hold her hair, if she needs someone to zip her back into her dress I'll help & tell her how awesome she looks today.
> 
> The number of truly transgendered people in the USA is extremely small - with most scientific estimates coming in at under 1% of the population (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/09/u...imate-of-the-transgender-population.html?_r=0). Rational people understand that people who identify as trans do their best to "look the part" of whatever gender they identify as, which is why we haven't noticed in the past if they use the bathroom for the gender they identify as. So we have an extremely small portion of the population here that conceivably to observers are in the appropriate bathroom by appearance.... why do we need a law giving them the right to use the bathroom they've been using for years? It's not like we're suddenly passing laws that all bathrooms must have a plumbing monitor who checks everyone on their way into the restroom or something
> 
> And maybe my perspective is skewed, but survivors of sexual assault (who greatly outnumber the trans population) need to know who's invited into places where we're vulnerable, like dressing rooms & bathrooms. If a bathroom is labelled Unisex I know that if I'm having a bad day I need to find somewhere else to potty. If it's labelled Women, I need to know that there won't be a bunch of burly bearded guys in there peeing thru the cracks in the stall doors. And yes, it absolutely does make a difference to us if it's another woman or a man, if only from a psychological standpoint. I don't want my kids to witness me having a complete PTSD attack in the restroom because there's some clearly masculine man standing outside of the stall door when I walk out.


Your perspective is fine and you stated what I was trying to much better than I ever could.

My only concern with the current restroom battle is the fact that really, all one need do, if we allow for Trans gender use of women's restrooms, is for some male pervert to slap on a dress and walk on in. I know that a real Transgender person is living the lifestyle and not just cross dressing, but, no one has told me yet how to tell the difference. Just like we are not going to have package checkers stationed at each restroom entry, we are also not going to have folks interviewing people to determine if they are truly trans gender, or, some criminal bent on assault. 

As it stands now, if an obviously male person enters a woman's restroom, the police/security can intervene and stop him. This will no longer be the case if the laws are changed and we will be putting our daughters, mothers wives, sisters, friends in real danger.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> I agree that most people of the opposite sex should not really be using a clearly marked sex identified restroom in most circumstances at this point in time. I don't think that goes for people who have transitioned or who are going through the transition.
> 
> That however does not mean there are rights to privacy in public restrooms that extend past the stall.


And I will pose this question to you. How do you tell the difference between a serial rapist who has just found a ripe hunting ground because of these new more "inclusive" laws, and a real trans gender person in the early stages of transformation?


----------



## dixiegal62

Farmerga said:


> And I will pose this question to you. How do you tell the difference between a serial rapist who has just found a ripe hunting ground because of these new more "inclusive" laws, and a real trans gender person in the early stages of transformation?


Good luck getting an answer. I asked this a few times in the other thread and got nadda.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> And I will pose this question to you. How do you tell the difference between a serial rapist who has just found a ripe hunting ground because of these new more "inclusive" laws, and a real trans gender person in the early stages of transformation?


How can you? Maybe that serial rapists is Lesbian. How do you make laws to deal with that situation?

Wait I know, you make laws that deal with the action not the person that might possibly commit the crime.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> How can you? Maybe that serial rapists is Lesbian. How do you make laws to deal with that situation?
> 
> Wait I know, you make laws that deal with the action not the person that might possibly commit the crime.


Being that the vast majority of serial rapists are male, yes, you make laws prohibiting a male from entering the women's restroom and vice versa. 

I will ask you this, Are you for people carrying firearms into schools, churches, grocery stores, public restrooms, court houses, and any other place open to the public? If not how would that attitude jive with not making laws for the people who may commit a crime?


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Yes, you make laws prohibiting a male from entering the women's restroom.
> 
> I will ask you this, Are you for people carrying firearms into schools, churches, grocery stores, public restrooms, court houses, and any other place open to the public? If not how would that attitude jive with not making laws for the people who may commit a crime?


If you get to make that law then they should be able to make laws abolish guns because a few ( or many) might use them to shoot people.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> If you get to make that law then they should be able to make laws abolish guns because a few ( or many) might use them to shoot people.


 Many are trying to make just that law, but, that is not what I asked. We have the right to privacy, we also have the right to keep and bear arms. You seem to be against both of them.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Many are trying to make just that law, but, that is not what I asked. We have the right to privacy, we also have the right to keep and bear arms. You seem to be against both of them.


You don't have a right to privacy in the public portion of a bathroom.


----------



## greg273

Farmerga said:


> And I will pose this question to you. How do you tell the difference between a serial rapist who has just found a ripe hunting ground because of these new more "inclusive" laws, and a real trans gender person in the early stages of transformation?


 What is to stop someone from doing that now? Kind of like the gun thing, if people want to do harm, they don't follow the laws anyway. 
I truly don't get the uproar over this, trans people have been using the restrooms of their choice forever, and I've never heard of a rape epidemic being reported because of it.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> You don't have a right to privacy in the public portion of a bathroom.


If that sign says "women" you have the reasonable expectation of privacy from the males of the species.


----------



## Farmerga

greg273 said:


> What is to stop someone from doing that now? Kind of like the gun thing, if people want to do harm, they don't follow the laws anyway.
> I truly don't get the uproar over this, trans people have been using the restrooms of their choice forever, and I've never heard of a rape epidemic being reported because of it.


You don't seem to understand what I am saying. I am not speaking of the people who will "pass" for a natural born woman, they don't have a problem now. I am speaking of the obviously male folks. If you see a person, who is obviously male, enter a woman's RR, most, naturally ,have a reaction to that, and have legal recourse. If these laws are enacted, all Joe Perv would have to say is that he is an early transgender and there will be no recourse, until he makes off with someone's 12 year old daughter.


----------



## MO_cows

Humans sure are crazy critters! 

There was one, count 'em one, incident of a person with a shoe bomb on a plane. But now we all submit to taking our shoes off at the airport. One underwear bomb, now most airports put you through the "x ray vision" machine and check your underwear. And millions of people fly every day, apparently we are fine with this as a society. 

I bet you wouldn't have to look very far to find a news report of a rape in a restroom. But because of "equality" and all that good stuff, oh no, we couldn't possibly limit access to a gender specific restroom to people who currently have that gender's body parts. It defies logic when compared to the airport scenario. However, if you did restrict the access, are the public gender-specific restrooms going to be monitored...or is it just a "call the cops if you see a violation" thing? It's just crazy all the way around. 

Frankly, Scarlet, I don't care who uses what restroom. Every women's restroom I have ever been in, has stalls. So any male-to-female transgender person isn't going to expose themselves to me, nor me to them. The opposite situation, female-to-male transgender, well if the surgery isn't complete they aren't going to be making use of a urinal, so again the stall provides everyone with privacy. 

Where I do become a prude, is when you get to public places where you also shower. Unless there is individual privacy in the facility, the transgender person then needs to use the facility that matches their current body parts. Some facilities seem to have been designed on the "prison model" where there is no privacy, and that is a different ball of wax.


----------



## Shine

greg273 said:


> What is to stop someone from doing that now? Kind of like the gun thing, if people want to do harm, they don't follow the laws anyway.
> I truly don't get the uproar over this, trans people have been using the restrooms of their choice forever, and I've never heard of a rape epidemic being reported because of it.


There's never been a law that recognizes them and provides access to Transgendered people *or people that resemble Transgendered people.*

Time will tell as it does with anything... Hopefully no one's daughter, mother, sister, grandmother, aunt will have to pay the price...


----------



## Darren

painterswife said:


> Privacy from men only is not a right.


I think we're missing the real issue. Perverts seem to be peculiarly innovative. I remember one story from years ago about a man who donned a raincoat and hat and climbed into a women's outhouse. One of the women finally wondered what the yellow thing was down there. Other perverts are known for using cameras and mirrors to take up skirt pictures.

There's a group of perverts that would love to have access to all restrooms. If you don't mind your privates being shared on the internet, I guess you might still think letting Bill the pervert in to use the stall next to you is peachy. Do all women think that's OK?


----------



## greg273

Farmerga said:


> If these laws are enacted, all Joe Perv would have to say is that he is an early transgender and there will be no recourse, until he makes off with someone's 12 year old daughter.


 Again, what is to stop anyone from doing that now? 

I really don't know the specifics of any of this legislation, I am not in favor of 'dudes in the ladies room', but I also know having a shemale in drag next to me in the urinal would be a little weird. 
The fact remains the vast majority of people go into a restroom to use the facilities, not to rape people. No law, or lack of laws, is going to change that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I self-identify as a Billionaire, so I should be allowed to bounce checks to buy whatever I want....to prosecute me would be to deny me my right to be who I am inside


Billionaires don't bounce checks


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> They would fall under the "Privileges" then, although privacy is a right enumerated in the Constitution.
> 
> What did the lady take from someone else? She was hired, was she not?


She lied on her application.
Had she told them all the facts they might have been more accepting.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> So, a construction, worker with a beard down to his knees, can just walk into any woman's public restroom and get to peeing?


If he's got a beard down *to his knees* he will probably need to sit and pee anyway. 

No one will see anything they can't see outside the restroom.

It's funny how ridiculous these discussions get when people use emotions instead of logic


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Being a female business owner helps me get government contracts. If I where male and *claimed to be female* when bidding and on contracts it would be an unfair advantage would it not?


If you were honest you'd tell them you're transgendered MTF.
You'd still be a minority


----------



## logbuilder

Shine said:


> There's never been a law that recognizes them and provides access to Transgendered people *or people that resemble Transgendered people.*


I'm afraid you are sorely wrong about there not being laws that recognize transgender or provide access.

Sixteen states have laws recognizing gender identity as well as 143 cities and counties. Some of those are in your state of Florida (Largo and Tequesta as examples).

Here is a link to details, state by state.

http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndlaws/index.htm


----------



## dixiegal62

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you were honest you'd tell them you're transgendered MTF.
> You'd still be a minority


It's not one of the choices on the paperwork


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> And I will pose this question to you. How do you tell the difference between *a serial rapist* who has just found a ripe hunting ground because of these new more "inclusive" laws, and a real trans gender person in the early stages of transformation?


Why is it you cannot refrain from conjuring up all these ILLEGAL acts to compare to simply using a restroom in a normal manner?

Everything you mention is already illegal no matter who does it.

It's a common theme in these discussions to always fantasize about criminal acts and pretend someone has suggested they should be legal

There's nothing stopping the "serial rapist" now

This sort of argument just makes you look naive


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Being that the vast majority of serial rapists are male, yes, *you make laws prohibiting *a male from entering the women's restroom and vice versa.
> 
> I will ask you this, Are you for people carrying firearms into schools, churches, grocery stores, public restrooms, court houses, and any other place open to the public? If not how would that attitude jive with not making laws for the people who may commit a crime?


Do you realize how silly all that sounds?
Do you think laws prevent crimes?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Being that the vast majority of serial rapists are male, yes, you make laws prohibiting a male from entering the women's restroom and vice versa.
> 
> I will ask you this, Are you for people carrying firearms into schools, churches, grocery stores, public restrooms, court houses, and any other place open to the public? If not how would that attitude jive with not making laws for the people who may commit a crime?


Rape is already illegal in every state in the US, adding additional law is redundant.


----------



## Shine

logbuilder said:


> I'm afraid you are sorely wrong about there not being laws that recognize transgender or provide access.
> 
> Sixteen states have laws recognizing gender identity as well as 143 cities and counties. Some of those are in your state of Florida (Largo and Tequesta as examples).
> 
> Here is a link to details, state by state.
> 
> http://www.transgenderlaw.org/ndlaws/index.htm


In this particular case I stand corrected. Thanks for the update. I was unaware of those laws. Largo is quite close to here.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Irish Pixie said:


> Rape is already illegal in every state in the US, adding additional law is redundant.


Has not stopped raping children yet....why give them another outlet?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

elevenpoint said:


> Has not stopped raping children yet....why give them another outlet?


There's no evidence it would change anything.
It's all hype and speculation with no basis in fact


----------



## Jokarva

Farmerga said:


> Your perspective is fine and you stated what I was trying to much better than I ever could.
> 
> My only concern with the current restroom battle is the fact that really, all one need do, if we allow for Trans gender use of women's restrooms, is for some male pervert to slap on a dress and walk on in. I know that a real Transgender person is living the lifestyle and not just cross dressing, but, no one has told me yet how to tell the difference. Just like we are not going to have package checkers stationed at each restroom entry, we are also not going to have folks interviewing people to determine if they are truly trans gender, or, some criminal bent on assault.
> 
> As it stands now, if an obviously male person enters a woman's restroom, the police/security can intervene and stop him. This will no longer be the case if the laws are changed and we will be putting our daughters, mothers wives, sisters, friends in real danger.



If an 'obviously male person' walks into the ladies room here in NC....is he a male? Or is he a trans male (beard and all) who still has female genitalia and is now required by law to use the ladies room? 

No man needs to put on a dress now, our idiotic HB2 has made it possible for a male to walk in the ladies room and we won't know if he's there to do harm, or required to be there by law.


----------



## thericeguy

My wife and I discuss this topic as two parents of three children aged 6, 10, and 11. I say this only as a point of perspective. I think we are relatively ordinary people living rather ordinary lives. The only two things that set us outside mainstream is that we choose to live in rural areas and we are Christians. These two things make us part of a minority. I will share our perspective on this topic. 

We live in a world that accepts there are people who want to do harm. There are constant news stories about child abduction, molestation, and murder. To us, it is a sick world out there. As parents, it is our duty to do all we can to protect ourselves and our children from that very sick world. 

We want to live in a world where if a person dressed as a man, or clearly looks like a man dressed as a woman, if they try to enter a womans restroom, we want there to be shrieks of horror to draw attention that someone is trying to enter an inappropriate bathroom. 

Why? Because the people who want to do harm rely upon the shadows to do their harm. If noone shrieks, they are free to stroll in and take up a stall to plot their next victim. 

I find it odd and illogical that people who want to make it mainstream for obvious men to be allowed into a womans restroom use crime statistics to back up their position. You do realise that the threat of that shriek, and the attention that it will bring, will stop some of them from trying. We can probably agree that it will not stop the sickest of the sick, but if it stops just one, is it not worthwhile?

We also laugh that the people who want these special treatments rely upon the rest of us reasonable folks who play by the "rules" to continue to play by the rules, even though the rules have changed. 

Imagine if everyone eligible decided a peaceful protest. 500 men show up to a local Target store which recently announced that anyone can use any restroom regardless of sex. These 500 men get in line at the womens restroom, all stating they identify as women. Would women feel comfortable using the restroom in that situation? Or would they seek another place?

See, the people promoting these policies rely upon the rest os us to act like sheep. Men continue to use the mens room. Ladies in the ladies. This allows a minute fraction of the population to get a special rule that lets them go anywhere they choose and it not become a public disturbance. But what if people finally had enough of having the rulebook written by the fringes of society, and 500 men showed up in your store to show you what it could be like?

The internet has made it very easy for some very sick people to trade around child pornography. Why do you want to give this crowd even more tools to satisfy their very sick needs? Is it because you do not think it statistically likely that your child will end up on the internet? Or maybe you just dont care as much about my child as much as you do a trans person.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

This whole Transgender bathroom fiasco is nothing but symbolism.
A continuism to wreck the status Quo. To stick it to "The Angry Old White Man".
To transform to the abis if you will. This has been going on for years for those who have been paying attention..and it won't end well.


----------



## painterswife

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> This whole Transgender bathroom fiasco is nothing but symbolism.
> A continuism to wreck the status Quo. To stick it to "The Angry Old White Man".
> To transform to the abis if you will. This has been going on for years for those who have been paying attention..and it won't end well.


Much ado about people wanting to pee.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

People have always pee'ed. Why is it now an issue. I could be wrong, but I don't recall any issues before about anyone using a public restroom.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Why is it you cannot refrain from conjuring up all these ILLEGAL acts to compare to simply using a restroom in a normal manner?
> 
> Everything you mention is already illegal no matter who does it.
> 
> It's a common theme in these discussions to always fantasize about criminal acts and pretend someone has suggested they should be legal
> 
> There's nothing stopping the "serial rapist" now
> 
> This sort of argument just makes you look naive


 As you are often wrong and cannot see past your own biases, I will explain. Now if the male serial rapist enters the woman's bathroom, witnesses/bystanders may notice and act to stop him. If we let males enter women's bathrooms, as a matter of "inclusion", they will not.


----------



## Farmerga

Jokarva said:


> If an 'obviously male person' walks into the ladies room here in NC....is he a male? Or is he a trans male (beard and all) who still has female genitalia and is now required by law to use the ladies room?
> 
> No man needs to put on a dress now, our idiotic HB2 has made it possible for a male to walk in the ladies room and we won't know if he's there to do harm, or required to be there by law.


 It is impossible to enforce the NC law on trans-sexuals who are further along in the process. I am not speaking of trans-sexuals, I am speaking of men who will take advantage of these new allowances to commit violent acts against others. These new laws simply give another shadow in which they can hide.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Farmerga said:


> Your perspective is fine and you stated what I was trying to much better than I ever could.
> 
> My only concern with the current restroom battle is the fact that really, all one need do, if we allow for Trans gender use of women's restrooms, is for some male pervert to slap on a dress and walk on in. I know that a real Transgender person is living the lifestyle and not just cross dressing, but, no one has told me yet how to tell the difference. Just like we are not going to have package checkers stationed at each restroom entry, we are also not going to have folks interviewing people to determine if they are truly trans gender, or, some criminal bent on assault.
> 
> As it stands now, if an obviously male person enters a woman's restroom, the police/security can intervene and stop him. This will no longer be the case if the laws are changed and we will be putting our daughters, mothers wives, sisters, friends in real danger.


They can't be arrested _prior_ to entering, right? Rape and assault (sexual or otherwise) filming, and other related activities are already illegal.

Unless you have genital checkers how are you going to know what lurks in the underwear of people entering bathrooms?

Just how will a new law change anything?


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Do you realize how silly all that sounds?
> Do you think laws prevent crimes?


Let me explain once again, as you seem very confused when it comes to this issue.

We have laws against driving drunk. Does it stop it? No. What it does do is give law enforcement the power to stop a drunk driver before he can do major damage. How many more people would die, on our roads, if DUI were not illegal? 

Take that and transfer it to males not being allowed in female only restrooms. Will it stop rape? No, but, it will empower law enforcement to act and, perhaps, fewer rapes/kidnappings/other assorted crimes will occur. 

Real trans-sexuals, in reality, will have little trouble with these laws as they eventually look like the sex to which they are transforming and would draw no suspicion.


----------



## mreynolds

logbuilder said:


> I get it and don't fault you for using the system to your advantage. That's business. I just wish the system wasn't tilted to the advantage of one tribe vs another.
> 
> Over my career, I've worked as a purchasing agent for 2 Fortune 500 companies with annual spend under my control into the 10s of millions. We didn't use gender or minority status as a evaluation criteria. Rather, the business terms formed the deal.
> 
> If two deals were *exactly* the same on business terms, then I _might_ could see how giving the contract to a minority group would be the right thing to do. However, I seldom saw proposals that were equal among competitors. There was always something different in regards to business terms and/or deliverables.


The difference was the Fortune 500_ companies_. The Government only does this and they do it so they can tell everyone what a good politician they are. I cant tell you how many times I have been beat out by minorities that had companies 20 to 50 times larger than mine. 

But its a game we all play because we have to.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> As you are often wrong and cannot see past your own biases, I will explain. Now *if* the *male serial rapist* enters the woman's bathroom, witnesses/bystanders may notice and act to stop him. * If *we let males enter women's bathrooms, as a matter of "inclusion", they will not.


All your arguments are based on "IF", along with illegal acts and have nothing to do with transgenders.


How many posts before you bring up slavery and our oppressive Govt?


----------



## Txsteader

greg273 said:


> I truly don't get the uproar over this, trans people have been using the restrooms of their choice forever, and I've never heard of a rape epidemic being reported because of it.


Then why, as someone asked earlier, the need for government involvement and legislation?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> Then* why*, as someone asked earlier, the need for government involvement and legislation?


Ask the Governor of NC why he signed HB2 if you believe Govt had no need to get involved


----------



## Txsteader

Bearfootfarm said:


> Ask the Governor of NC why he signed HB2 if you believe Govt had no need to get involved


Obviously, the Governor signed HB2 in response to ordinances that were being passed around the state re: trans and gender-identity individuals.

But that wasn't my question. My question is, why the need for those ordinances if trans have been using public restrooms of their choice forever?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Then why, as someone asked earlier, the need for government involvement and legislation?


Because some people need to be forced not to discriminate against other people. History proves this over and over.


----------



## farmrbrown

Irish Pixie said:


> They can't be arrested _prior_ to entering, right? Rape and assault (sexual or otherwise) filming, and other related activities are already illegal.
> 
> Unless you have genital checkers how are you going to know what lurks in the underwear of people entering bathrooms?
> 
> Just how will a new law change anything?





Txsteader said:


> Then why, as someone asked earlier, the need for government involvement and legislation?



The correct answer to the question can be found by reading the law.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E2/Bills/House/PDF/H2v4.pdf

The closest answer is the post below.




mreynolds said:


> The difference was the Fortune 500_ companies_. The Government only does this and they do it so they can tell everyone what a good politician they are. I cant tell you how many times I have been beat out by minorities that had companies 20 to 50 times larger than mine.
> 
> But its a game we all play because we have to.




The law doesn't prevent transgenders from using the bathroom. It specifically doesn't prevent any public or private entity from providing a separate restroom/changing room for those who identify themselves as such.

It DOES prevent local and state governments from REQUIRING any public or private entities to allow a different sex in a single sex bathroom.

IOW if city X wanted to pass an ordinance that all the city's business had to comply with their "non-discriminatory" ordinance, against the establishment's wishes, they now cannot pass such a law.

I don't think the safety of women and children issue holds any water. There may be a few rare cases that can be cited, but the underlying reason, in my opinion, is a backlash from the recent court actions against businesses and states that were forced to go against their beliefs and branded as bigots.

You may not find overwhelming resistance to cakes or flowers being forced to sell or jailing court clerks until they issue marriage licenses that a few years ago never would have been allowed.
But when it comes to the ultimate example of a person's privacy and discretion, it doesn't get much more intimate than the toilet seat.
eep:

It seems to me like the ones pushing this are trying to find the right button to annoy the heck out of the other.........and it looks like they found it.


----------



## greg273

The sense I get farmerbrown, and haypoint alluded to this, is that you guys have taken a few hits in the culture war and want to strike back. Nice. Tolerance is going to win.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> In other words farmerbrown, you guys have taken a few hits in the culture war and want to strike back. Nice. Tolerance is going to win.


Yeah, that's the gist of it, just my opinion of what I see.
If it IS a culture war, is there a chance of a truce, or is destroying every last bit of manners, decency or morality the only acceptable option?

And I don't mean that to be taken as one-sided, BTW.

Can the idea of "tolerance" be something akin to compromise?
Or is that simply a word people use when things have to be 100% "their way or the highway"?


----------



## Txsteader

When Houston's mayor dictated the legislation, local pastors and business people demanded that the issue be put to a vote by the public. It was resoundingly voted down. This is _Houston_, who's citizens elected a lesbian mayor. 

Up to this point, the public has been relatively tolerant of LGBT issues. This gender-identity/bathroom issue has crossed the line, however, and is only going to cause friction and resentment against the LGBT community. But, of course, progressives can't see that as they're incapable of seeing how bigoted _they_ have become in their quest for 'social justice and equality'.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> When Houston's mayor dictated the legislation, local pastors and business people demanded that the issue be put to a vote by the public. It was resoundingly voted down. This is _Houston_, who's citizens elected a lesbian mayor.
> 
> Up to this point, the public has been relatively tolerant of LGBT issues. This gender-identity/bathroom issue has crossed the line, however, and is only going to cause friction and resentment against the LGBT community. But, of course, progressives can't see that as they're incapable of seeing how bigoted _they_ have become in their quest for 'social justice and equality'.


Your view of tolerance and mine differs significantly. You don't remember the protests against marriage equality? It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve? God hates ****? Homosexuals will burn in hell? The fact that LGBT had to take businesses to court to be treated the same as heterosexuals? And going back a bit further, do you think the beatings and deaths of gay men, the rape of lesbians are "relatively tolerant"? 

This is the same as civil rights in the 60s, and many of the same people that had to be forced to accept blacks, the disabled, and women as equals have to be forced treat LGBT equally as well.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> All your arguments are based on "IF", along with illegal acts and have nothing to do with transgenders.
> 
> 
> How many posts before you bring up slavery and our oppressive Govt?


As it stands now, in most areas it is an "if" question, as most areas still require males to use the male facilities and females to use the female facilities. 

You seem to be saying that letting a 3 year old play with a bottle of bleach is fine and any argument against that action, speculating on what may happen, is based on "if" and is, therefore, not valid. As per usual, you are wrong. 

If slavery or the oppressive government can be used to illustrate a point, I will bring them up then.


----------



## Farmerga

greg273 said:


> The sense I get farmerbrown, and haypoint alluded to this, is that you guys have taken a few hits in the culture war and want to strike back. Nice. Tolerance is going to win.


We are past the tolerance stage of this fight. Acceptance is what is now desired and anyone not willing to accept anything and everything (with the possible exception being made for Christians), they are beyond contempt and should be isolated from modern society. Is that pretty much correct?


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> This is the same as civil rights in the 60s, and many of the same people that had to be forced to accept blacks, the disabled, and women as equals have to be forced treat LGBT equally as well.


Nope. This 'self-identity' issue is liberalism gone moonbat extreme.


----------



## thericeguy

You are right about the exception for Christians in the country. We are under a full assault by others who refuse or try to refuse us our beliefs. It has become trendy and accepted to ridicule and harrass Christians. 

http://m.watchdog.org/?url=http://w...oy/&utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/#2665


----------



## Farmerga

Txsteader said:


> Nope. This 'self-identity' issue is liberalism gone moonbat extreme.


The bathroom fight is actually silly. A person, with a twig and two berries, is male and should be restricted from the use of the female facilities and those without should be restricted from the use of the male facilities. There is no discrimination. It is a very simple concept.

I mean there are people who "self-identify" as dogs, cats and other animals. Some to the point of surgically altering their bodies to more resemble the animal in question. Is the next fight going to involved the restrictions placed on bringing animals into certain places because these "animal people" feel as if they are discriminated against? (perhaps I have said too much)


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> Nope. This 'self-identity' issue is liberalism gone moonbat extreme.


I'm sure there were people that said that about blacks using the same bathroom too.


----------



## mzgarden

Does anyone's position change from support/acceptance if we change the location from public restroom to middle/high school/college sports/gym changing rooms and showers?

While I believe transgender people have likely been sharing restrooms with people of different plumbing, I believe the laws are now moving to allow boys that identify as girls to share their school changing rooms/showers. In one case the school attempted to bridge the gap by providing a separated space for the boy identifying as a girl but it was not acceptable.

_"The district says transgender students may use their gender-identified locker room if they change and shower privately. The government said a separate changing place was discriminatory because it subjected the student to stigma and different treatment....."_

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-high-school-locker-room_us_56387949e4b00a4d2e0bb825


----------



## Irish Pixie

mzgarden said:


> Does anyone's position change from support/acceptance if we change the location from public restroom to middle/high school/college sports/gym changing rooms and showers?
> 
> While I believe transgender people have likely been sharing restrooms with people of different plumbing, I believe the laws are now moving to allow boys that identify as girls to share their school changing rooms/showers. In one case the school attempted to bridge the gap by providing a separated space for the boy identifying as a girl but it was not acceptable.
> 
> _"The district says transgender students may use their gender-identified locker room if they change and shower privately. The government said a separate changing place was discriminatory because it subjected the student to stigma and different treatment....."_
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-high-school-locker-room_us_56387949e4b00a4d2e0bb825


This is a gray area for me and I haven't decided how I feel about it yet. I need more information before I can make a decision.


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> This is a gray area for me and I haven't decided how I feel about it yet. I need more information before I can make a decision.


Well you'd better make a decision quick because you just know that it's coming next. How could it not? I mean, if they insist on being treated 'equally' based merely on gender identity, why would they stop at restrooms?


----------



## dixiegal62

mzgarden said:


> _"The district says transgender students may use their gender-identified locker room if they change and shower privately. The government said a separate changing place was discriminatory because it subjected the student to stigma and different treatment....."_
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-high-school-locker-room_us_56387949e4b00a4d2e0bb825


So as it stands now every man woman and child in this country are being discriminated against and have been their whole lives by men's and women's rooms?


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Your view of tolerance and mine differs significantly. You don't remember the protests against marriage equality? It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve? God hates ****? Homosexuals will burn in hell? The fact that LGBT had to take businesses to court to be treated the same as heterosexuals? And going back a bit further, do you think the beatings and deaths of gay men, the rape of lesbians are "relatively tolerant"?
> 
> This is the same as civil rights in the 60s, and many of the same people that had to be forced to accept blacks, the disabled, and women as equals have to be forced treat LGBT equally as well.


Not confronting you directly but here we have a premise: A group of people that are over-intolerant with their appraisal of Gay people, ranting, beating and in some instances - murders. We all saw the news.

For the record, I am against that.

In another thread we are discussing the intolerance of some people with no apparent desire to compromise, essentially a demand that the rest of the population accept their wants and desires in total. In the above paragraph we see instances of those that will not compromise, in this paragraph we make note of the resistance of the Transgender persons to compromise.

For the largest part of human history, things that people work towards a compromise usually find a teeter point where both sides can agree.

I do not see that happening with any of these "rights" conflicts. One group demands EVERYTHING that they can think of to the point that it is outrageous, IMO. They take these demands to the courts. I really do not understand how a court can overrule the rights of one group to elevate another group. Now these demands, in total, are forced down our throats.

The bathroom thing I am seeing as a possible non-issue except for those that are not conscious of nor are interested in following the laws. It is possible that more women will be harmed because of this added access. As in the first paragraph we see some people [a small percentage] who are not tolerant of others taking actions that are outside of being reasonable as if this is the standard response of those that do not agree with the Transgendered rights. I also attribute this to the Transgendered crowd, a few put the face on the many.

Now to the crux. To invade what for the longest time has been a sterile environment [for the most part] where boys have been segregated from girls wherein they attend to personal hygiene after engaging in team sports or physical exercise so that all that we know of modesty and safety as parents is being cast to the wayside by the courts that we depend upon for the sanctity of our world and the safety of our children, and we, the parents, are told that we have no other choice than but to submit or school our children elsewhere.

As a parent and as a person I certainly find this to be intolerant of my and my children's rights.

However, I am willing to discuss the matter to see if there are compromises that might allow both entities to find some middle ground.


----------



## thericeguy

Shine, such logic and reason has no place in this screaming match.


----------



## FarmerKat

IMO, there is sometimes a very fine line between self identification and mental diseases. For example, we read stories about people identifying as quadriplegic and they use a wheelchair, require that others care for them as if they were paralyzed, some even go as far as getting surgery to make them quadriplegic. Is that a mental disorder that should be treated or self-identification that should be accepted?

Then there are people who self-identify as something they are not solely for the purpose of gaining something. E.g. someone who claims they are Native American to get a college scholarship reserved for Native Americans. I think these people are just fraud. 

When it comes to gender, (I think) it is more complicated as there is a hormonal component and it is possible that some people may have hormonal makeup that does not match their physical make up. But then again - does it make it a medical condition that should be treated with hormone therapy or one that should be treated with surgery to make the body match the hormones?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> As it stands now, in most areas it is an "if" question, as most areas still require males to use the male facilities and females to use the female facilities.
> 
> *You seem to be saying that letting a 3 year old play with a bottle of bleach is fine *and any argument against that action, speculating on what may happen, is based on "if" and is, therefore, not valid. As per usual, you are wrong.
> 
> If slavery or the oppressive government can be used to illustrate a point, I will bring them up then.


You seem to be making up more fantasies since your irrational argument was never stated by anyone.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I self identify as a human. Bahhaha, LOL.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I self identify as a human. Bahhaha, LOL.


Hmmmm. Your picture appears to be a gargoyle of sorts. Smile.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to be making up more fantasies since your irrational argument was never stated by anyone.


No, it is called extrapolation. If you refuse to see the possible outcomes of one scenario, it would stand to reason that you would refuse to see the possible outcomes of other scenarios. How about you drink poison, scratch your head with a loaded pistol, handle venomous snakes, etc. Apparently, for you, any if/when scenario is mere fantasy and is not likely to happen. Must be a very freeing attitude. :happy2:


----------



## Txsteader

The appalling thing about this accepting attitude/justification is that the ones most vulnerable to the policy are women and children. 

I guess that means progressives hate women and children.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Hmmmm. Your picture appears to be a gargoyle of sorts. Smile.


*gasp* Gryphon! :hobbyhors:
LOL


----------



## Irish Pixie

Txsteader said:


> The appalling thing about this accepting attitude/justification is that the ones most vulnerable to the policy are women and children.
> 
> I guess that means progressives hate women and children.


Yup, about as much as conservatives hate LGBT. 

ETA: I'm rather dismayed that I have to state that this is sarcasm. I really thought the sarcasm smilie would be a big enough clue, but I was wrong.


----------



## farmrbrown

Txsteader said:


> The appalling thing about this accepting attitude/justification is that the ones most vulnerable to the policy are women and children.
> 
> I guess that means progressives hate women and children.





Irish Pixie said:


> Yup, about as much as conservatives hate LGBT.


I wonder how long it will take to understand NEITHER statement is true?


----------



## arabian knight

Txsteader said:


> The appalling thing about this accepting attitude/justification is that the ones most vulnerable to the policy are women and children.
> 
> I guess that means progressives hate women and children.


They sure HATE children that is no lie. Want to put the young ones into this situation is ridiculous. But never there less the select few that think this poo doesn't stink have got to get their way no matter what it takes, and no matter WHO it hurts in the process.


----------



## moonrabbit

I'm torn on this. On the one hand this is such a first world problem that it is depressing because in the meantime:

-3.5 million children under 5 die each year from malnutrition around the globe
-1 in 402 Americans are homeless
-Every day 43 kids are diagnosed with cancer
-(insert other bigger fishes that need frying here)

On the other hand this is not about bathrooms is it? It's about a very slippery slope we are on.

There used to be good battles to be fought, as a woman I am grateful that I can vote and attend college. As a minority woman I'm glad my kids were born free and not slaves. But is there a line? I think there is or at least there should be. Because we have ventured beyond physical, unchangeable differences and now we are fighting for mental differences. The equality train ran out of track and has gone offroad, where will it stop? Nobody knows.

I'm Christian and as a Christian I consider homosexual activity to be a sin, yet I am not unkind or hateful toward homosexual people because that is not what Jesus taught IMO. As a Christian I am supposed to respect and follow the laws of my land and it's leaders and I do that also. 

But it seems like we are "empowering" smaller and smaller groups of people. Many trans people describe being trans as being born with the wrong brain. That is a mental disorder. It is comparable to other mental disorders where people think one of their arms or legs doesn't belong to them. 

I feel sympathy for people afflicted with this disorder but I do not think that collectively playing along with their delusion as a society in some charade of the emperor's new clothes is a reasonable response to mental illness. If a schizophrenic person insists that she needs 3 extra seats on the train for her imaginary friends to sit in should the law enforce her right to have those extra seats? Of course not. You are inflicting the consequences of your unfortunate mental illness on others at that point.

Where will this country draw the line? Will it be pedophilia? Go do a search on the progressive blogs and you will already find articles talking about how pedophiles are born that way and all the persecution they face and how safe spaces and community for pedophiles are being created. Pedophiles may well be the next oppressed minority we will all be called upon to accept and make accommodations for.


----------



## Irish Pixie

moonrabbit said:


> I'm torn on this. On the one hand this is such a first world problem that it is depressing because in the meantime:
> 
> -3.5 million children under 5 die each year from malnutrition around the globe
> -1 in 402 Americans are homeless
> -Every day 43 kids are diagnosed with cancer
> -(insert other bigger fishes that need frying here)
> 
> On the other hand this is not about bathrooms is it? It's about a very slippery slope we are on.
> 
> There used to be good battles to be fought, as a woman I am grateful that I can vote and attend college. As a minority woman I'm glad my kids were born free and not slaves. But is there a line? I think there is or at least there should be. Because we have ventured beyond physical, unchangeable differences and now we are fighting for mental differences. The equality train ran out of track and has gone offroad, where will it stop? Nobody knows.
> 
> I'm Christian and as a Christian I consider homosexual activity to be a sin, yet I am not unkind or hateful toward homosexual people because that is not what Jesus taught IMO. As a Christian I am supposed to respect and follow the laws of my land and it's leaders and I do that also.
> 
> But it seems like we are "empowering" smaller and smaller groups of people. Many trans people describe being trans as being born with the wrong brain. That is a mental disorder. It is comparable to other mental disorders where people think one of their arms or legs doesn't belong to them.
> 
> I feel sympathy for people afflicted with this disorder but I do not think that collectively playing along with their delusion as a society in some charade of the emperor's new clothes is a reasonable response to mental illness. If a schizophrenic person insists that she needs 3 extra seats on the train for her imaginary friends to sit in should the law enforce her right to have those extra seats? Of course not. You are inflicting the consequences of your unfortunate mental illness on others at that point.
> 
> Where will this country draw the line? Will it be pedophilia? Go do a search on the progressive blogs and you will already find articles talking about how pedophiles are born that way and all the persecution they face and how safe spaces and community for pedophiles are being created. Pedophiles may well be the next oppressed minority we will all be called upon to accept and make accommodations for.


There is another thread titled, "Appeals Court Rules on Transgender Bathrooms" that addresses many of your concerns.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> She used her self identification to get something she had no right to. That is wrong. She should be able to self identify all she wants as long as she does not take things she has no right to.


That was a strange case. She wasn't really doing anything wrong, and her position didn't require that she be black. The problem arose when reporters noticed that she acted strangely when she was asked about it. When asked what her race was she would answer that she didn't understand the question, or some similar non-responsive reply.

I believe that her story only received national attention because it's so unusual for a white girl to be passing herself off as black.


----------



## JeffreyD

Nevada said:


> That was a strange case. She wasn't really doing anything wrong, and her position didn't require that she be black. The problem arose when reporters noticed that she acted strangely when she was asked about it. When asked what her race was she would answer that she didn't understand the question, or some similar non-responsive reply.
> 
> I believe that her story only received national attention because it's so unusual for a white girl to be passing herself off as black.


It's obvious from your post you don't go anywhere near mostly black communities. If you did, you would see many non blacks trying to be black. It's certainly not unusual. Except she was exploiting her blackness for personal gain.


----------



## Nevada

JeffreyD said:


> It's obvious from your post you don't go anywhere near mostly black communities. If you did, you would see many non blacks trying to be black. It's certainly not unusual.


When was another time such a case made national news?


----------



## greg273

moonrabbit said:


> Where will this country draw the line? Will it be pedophilia?


 The 'line' is drawn at actions that directly harm others. Someone being gay does not harm anyone, other than some religous types sense of morality. You yourself said being gay was 'a sin'. Now pedophilia HURTS OTHERS, and therefore will remain a crime. No need to use the old 'slippery slope' argument if you just want to marginalize gays for being 'sinners' against YOUR religious beliefs. Hopefully you thank your God daily that you werent born that way. 
Now how about not making their life MORE difficult?


----------



## MO_cows

Nevada said:


> That was a strange case. She wasn't really doing anything wrong, and her position didn't require that she be black. The problem arose when reporters noticed that she acted strangely when she was asked about it. When asked what her race was she would answer that she didn't understand the question, or some similar non-responsive reply.
> 
> I believe that her story only received national attention because it's so unusual for a white girl to be passing herself off as black.


Officially, her position didn't require a black person. But come on, how many plum positions in the NAACP go to anyone who isn't black. It's a wink wink nod nod deal and I don't blame them because it's their "brand".

Just like someone with a New Jersey accent wouldn't be first choice for the Georgia Tourism board.


----------



## ||Downhome||

You kids crack me up... LOL

I don't care what any one does as long as you don't infringe another.

Visit Detroit, most places do not even offer a Public Rest Room and they are not required.

That seems a simple enough fix.

The other option is a one stall toilet marked unisex... Wait your turn.

If the seat is up tuff luck and if some one did not bother to lift it just the same... 

I have yet to find a example, there is not a law preventing a man from using a woman's rest room nor a woman a man's??? (can some one cite one for me)

It is a matter of common courtesy as far as I know.

The Fact someone would even raise this as a Issue in the first place has me sick.

I am so sick of LGBT agenda.

I can not even turn on a show,with out some same sex make out scene???

Its not that I'm against people of a different stroke, I'm just tired of it being shoved down my throat.

Again a matter of common courtesy.

That whole marriage thing was a farce, why?

Well most of you advocating same sex marriage would be hard line separation of church and state.

Marriage has always been a Religious Institution, and as such the government has no business in Marriage. 

You can get married with out the governments blessing, how ever you have none of the legal protections.

They do however have a monopoly on contracts.

So when you go to the court house and get your License.

It should not be referred to not as a Marriage License but a civil contract because that is in fact what it is.

Like I said I do not take issue with other people living as they like,as long as it does not infringe another.

If Adam and Eve can have a legally recognized union so can Adam and Steve,the law is intended to protect and direct everyone.

I really don't think they realized what they have asked for though...LOL

All these laws catering to specific segments of society are BS. 

I'll entertain this term again, "COMMON COURTESY" of coarse that seems to be as rare today as common sense.

But if everyone used a little, the world would move along a lot smoother and perhaps rather then kicking dead dogs and Irrelevant issues time and time again we could address real Issues.

Of coarse then all the Drama goes bye bye and its too easy then right...


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Self identification for the purpose of being your true self is very different then self identifying for the sole purpose of getting something. Very easy to tell apart and only your business if they are trying to take something from you.


Who are YOU to judge?


----------



## watcher

To stir things up even more. If someone one day said they were a dog and started acting like a dog and demanded you treat them as a dog would you not say they have a mental problem and should seek treatment?

What's the difference between that and someone saying are the other gender and starts acting as they were?


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> To stir things up even more. If someone one day said they were a dog and started acting like a dog and demanded you treat them as a dog would you not say they have a mental problem and should seek treatment?
> 
> What's the difference between that and someone saying are the other gender and starts acting as they were?


I asked that same question and was told the change to an animal required a change in DNA, so was invalid. I suppose I was not supposed to know about XX and XY.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Who are YOU to judge?


I see that you are late to the party again. Are you judging me? Then right back at you, Who are YOU to judge?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> I see that you are late to the party again.


Yep, been busy.  Wasn't watching her close enough and the wife managed to get her shoes on and get out of the kitchen now I have new critters to care for plus have to build more housing and pens. That on top of caring for her after her accident/surgery. 




painterswife said:


> Are you judging me? Then right back at you, Who are YOU to judge?


Answer my question first. Who gives you the right to judge if that man standing in the women's locker room is someone who truly feels he should be a woman or if he's just there to watch women undress?

Isn't the POV of the alphabet gang that its wrong, demeaning, insensitive, bigoted and worse to demand they prove they met some standard before you allow them into whatever room they "feel" is proper?


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Yep, been busy. Wasn't watching her close enough and the wife managed to get her shoes on and get out of the kitchen now I have new critters to care for plus have to build more housing and pens. That on top of caring for her after her accident/surgery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer my question first. Who gives you the right to judge if that man standing in the women's locker room is someone who truly feels he should be a woman or if he's just there to watch women undress?
> 
> Isn't the POV of the alphabet gang that its wrong, demeaning, insensitive, bigoted and worse to demand they prove they met some standard before you allow them into whatever room they "feel" is proper?


Are you in the right thread? My post was about the Rachel Dolezal type situation.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> Are you in the right thread? My post was about the Rachel Dolezal type situation.


I'm talking about self identifying and being able to pick whatever locker room you "feel" is right for you.

You said:

"_Self identification for the purpose of being your true self is very different then self identifying for the sole purpose of getting something. Very easy to tell apart and only your business if they are trying to take something from you._"

I want to know who gave you the right to judge if the guy standing in the lady's locker room is there because he feels like he should be a woman or if he's there because he gets his jollies by watching women undress.

If someone says they feel like a woman is there some kind of test you demand they go through before you allow them into the woman's locker room? Do they have to have some kind of certificate or ID? Who gets to look into everyone's undies before they enter the locker room to see what kind of equipment they have so you can see if they are a real woman or a man who needs to be carded before entry to allow the "correct" men in but keep the "wrong" men out?


----------



## thericeguy

Watcher, I was having a 1 on 1 conversation with painterswife a few days back. As soon as we got to applying indecent exposure laws currently on the books eith regard to bathroom access, they suddenly fell silent and could no longer discuss the topic. 

When academia hits the real world it rarely works.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> I'm talking about self identifying and being able to pick whatever locker room you "feel" is right for you.
> 
> You said:
> 
> "_Self identification for the purpose of being your true self is very different then self identifying for the sole purpose of getting something. Very easy to tell apart and only your business if they are trying to take something from you._"
> 
> I want to know who gave you the right to judge if the guy standing in the lady's locker room is there because he feels like he should be a woman or if he's there because he gets his jollies by watching women undress.
> 
> If someone says they feel like a woman is there some kind of test you demand they go through before you allow them into the woman's locker room? Do they have to have some kind of certificate or ID? Who gets to look into everyone's undies before they enter the locker room to see what kind of equipment they have so you can see if they are a real woman or a man who needs to be carded before entry to allow the "correct" men in but keep the "wrong" men out?


If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


I would like that. Please explain.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I would like that. Please explain.


Explain what?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


This. I thought it was obvious.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> This. I thought it was obvious.


Well this is how discussions go. People exchange ideas, questions and thoughts. I already did that. You are supposed to do one of those things next.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Well this is how discussions go. People exchange ideas, questions and thoughts. I already did that. You are supposed to do one of those things next.


You offered to explain the meaning of your post. I acepted that. Twice. If this were a discussion, wouldnt you be doing that?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You offered to explain the meaning of your post. I acepted that. Twice. If this were a discussion, wouldnt you be doing that?


I said I would discuss my post. No where did I mention the reasons. Please read what I actually wrote.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


I would like to discuss the actual post made and how it pertains to the original post. Would you clarify for me just what you meant?

Three invites now with the third using your exact words.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I would like to discuss the actual post made and how it pertains to the original post. Would you clarify for me just what you meant?
> 
> Three invites now with the third using your exact words.


I have already discussed it in subsequent posts. You will have to actually answer a question that has not already be answered. I don't feel like guessing what new information you need.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


Just a few posts sgo you typed this. I would like to discuss the actual post you made and how it pertained to the original post. Nothing has been said that satisfies that request. I ask again, please discuss that topic which you brought up.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Just a few posts sgo you typed this. I would like to discuss the actual post you made and how it pertained to the original post. Nothing has been said that satisfies that request. I ask again, please discuss that topic which you brought up.


Like I said a few times. Unless you have an actual question for me to answer, there is no discussion.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Like I said a few times. Unless you have an actual question for me to answer, there is no discussion.


Here is an actual question. Why did you offer to discuss your post and how it pertained to the original post only to refuse to do that very thing?


----------



## thericeguy

Here is another question, as you asked. Why do you identify as painters wife? It reminds me of when my mother used to sign legal documents as the wife of my father. We, as a society, are way past that now. It is OK to have your own identity now outside your spouse.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Here is an actual question. Why did you offer to discuss your post and how it pertained to the original post only to refuse to do that very thing?


I have and I will. I will not however jump to your demands. Either ask a real question that I have not all ready discussed or stop playing games.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I have and I will. I will not however jump to your demands. Either ask a real question that I have not all ready discussed or stop playing games.


I think I have sufficiently proved my point, but thanks just the same.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Here is another question, as you asked. Why do you identify as painters wife? It reminds me of when my mother used to sign legal documents as the wife of my father. We, as a society, are way past that now. It is OK to have your own identity now outside your spouse.


I am a painter's wife. Pretty happy about that as well. It neither constrains my identity or defines the entirety of it.

I assume thericeguy does not define you in your entirely.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I think I have sufficiently proved my point, but thanks just the same.


So glad you believe that. It enlightens me about you greatly.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I am a painter's wife. Pretty happy about that as well. It neither constrains my identity or defines the entirety of it.
> 
> I assume thericeguy does not define you in your entirely.


You assume wrong.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You assume wrong.


Good to know.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I have and I will. I will not however jump to your demands. Either ask a real question that I have not all ready discussed or stop playing games.


So your answer is like "read the thread"? I was invited to do that numerous other times in another thread. I did just that. Two things happened. I did not find an snswer to the direct question that I had asked. I also found many posts that violated forum rules.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> So your answer is like "read the thread"? I was invited to do that numerous other times in another thread. I did just that. Two things happened. I did not find an snswer to the direct question that I had asked. I also found many posts that violated forum rules.


Well report them then.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Well report them then.


I did. Curious that thread is dead.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I did. Curious that thread is dead.


Did they get deleted, those reported posts?


----------



## thericeguy

I do not know. I will not reread that drivel again.


----------



## thericeguy

I find the same behaviour here. Do not answer questions. Do not explain. Do not reply.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I find the same behaviour here. Do not answer questions. Do not explain. Do not reply.


If there was a legitimate question, I might answer it. Instead you play games. Enjoy yourself.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> If there was a legitimate question, I might answer it. Instead you play games. Enjoy yourself.


Did you type the words I quoted 3 times offering to discuss it?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Did you type the words I quoted 3 times offering to discuss it?


Did you read my responses?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Did you read my responses?


Yes, but I am unable to find an answer to the question after you typed that invitation. Would you quote it please.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Yes, but I am unable to find an answer to the question after you typed that invitation. Would you quote it please.


Still demanding people answer you in a way yoy comand. How is that working for you?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Still demanding people answer you in a way yoy comand. How is that working for you?


Oh, just expecting any answer in any form filled with any content. Can you quote that answer that followed your invitation please?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Oh, just expecting any answer in any form filled with any content. Can you quote that answer that followed your invitation please?


Still banging that drum?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Still banging that drum?


Seems like a rock concert around you. Yup. 

Why would you offer to discuss something then refuse? Noone made you offer.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Seems like a rock concert around you. Yup.
> 
> Why would you offer to discuss something then refuse? Noone made you offer.


I have not refused. I have just not seen a question that I have not already answered.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I have not refused. I have just not seen a question that I have not already answered.


I know I am really slow. I only asked, what, twice. Can you quote for me discussion of your post and how it relates to the otiginal post since YOU made the offer to do that very thing?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I have not refused. I have just not seen a question that I have not already answered.


If that quote does not exist, why? I have asked numerous times.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I know I am really slow. I only asked, what, twice. Can you quote for me discussion of your post and how it relates to the otiginal post since YOU made the offer to do that very thing?


Why should I do the work for you?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


Sorry. Can you point out the "if I do not have to do any work" part in that?


----------



## thericeguy

You do not appear happy to do this at all to me. 2 pages and that discussion has not started. Why?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> You do not appear happy to do this at all to me. 2 pages and that discussion has not started. Why?


Nothing to discuss, no real question asked that I have not already answered. I would think I have said that enough times by now. I guess not. I can keep repeating it until I have said it enough.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


Can you rephrase this very simple remark that includes "if I dont have to do any work" or "read the thread"? I am lost trying to keep up with you as every post seems to redefine the previous post. 

It must be my failure. I am sure you would not want to come across as someone unwilling to do something you offered from your own free will. That would be embarrassing in my opinion.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Can you rephrase this very simple remark that includes "if I dont have to do any work" or "read the thread"? I am lost trying to keep up with you as every post seems to redefine the previous post.
> 
> It must be my failure. I am sure you would not want to come across as someone unwilling to do something you offered from your own free will. That would be embarrassing in my opinion.





painterswife said:


> Nothing to discuss, no real question asked that I have not already answered. I would think I have said that enough times by now. I guess not. I can keep repeating it until I have said it enough.


I will just cut and paste from now on. That is my answer and will stay the same. Nothing to be embarrassed about for me.


----------



## Chuck

If I self-identify as Donald Trump can I say everything is going to be UUUUUUUUGE!!!


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> I will just cut and paste from now on. That is my answer and will stay the same. Nothing to be embarrassed about for me.


Sorry. I got bored with the non conversation and served dinner to my family. Did you show me the answer somewhere I missed, again?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


Did you type this?


----------



## thericeguy

Chuck said:


> If I self-identify as Donald Trump can I say everything is going to be UUUUUUUUGE!!!


Could you share just a half billion with me, permanently.


----------



## mrsgcpete

omg. its time for some folks to try out another thread, or go outside or something.


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> If you would like to discuss the actual post I made and how it pertains to the original post. I would be happy to.


Huh? What I replied to was the second post in the thread. Your thought seems to be very clear, you expect someone to be the gate keeper of the locker rooms because you seem to be saying that someone needs to be there to decide if that man in the locker room has enough 'womanly feeling' to be allowed in or if he has too much 'manness' in him.

All I want to know is what criteria is to be used to decide if the guy in the woman's locker room should be allowed to stay or be arrested, who gets to set the standards, who gets to enforce them and how are they going to be enforced.

Seeing as how you seem to already know how to tell if the man in the woman's locker room is a woman in the wrong gender or a voyeur I thought you'd be the perfect person to ask.

Please enlighten us, enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## thericeguy

Watcher, I found the same thing as you once before. As soon as you get down to how this idea born in academia is to be implemented in a real society, silence. 

If a man is taking s whizz at a urinal and a woman decides to walk in, is he now guilty of indecent exposure? Still waiting on that answer. It had drawn nothing but silence so far.


----------



## painterswife

watcher said:


> Huh? What I replied to was the second post in the thread. Your thought seems to be very clear, you expect someone to be the gate keeper of the locker rooms because you seem to be saying that someone needs to be there to decide if that man in the locker room has enough 'womanly feeling' to be allowed in or if he has too much 'manness' in him.
> 
> All I want to know is what criteria is to be used to decide if the guy in the woman's locker room should be allowed to stay or be arrested, who gets to set the standards, who gets to enforce them and how are they going to be enforced.
> 
> Seeing as how you seem to already know how to tell if the man in the woman's locker room is a woman in the wrong gender or a voyeur I thought you'd be the perfect person to ask.
> 
> Please enlighten us, enquiring minds want to know.


My post was not about locker rooms. Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Self identification for the purpose of being your true self is very different then self identifying for the sole purpose of getting something. Very easy to tell apart and *only your business if they are trying to take something from you.*


When someone self identified, regardless of intention, and they recieve a society benefit due to that self identification, by your definition it has become my business. 

I am competing in society for scarce resources. Since there is no way to prove people's intentions with self identification, there becomes no method to distinguish a good from bad, right from wrong. 

This is why, for the history of mankind, men have been XY, women have been XX, dogs have been dogs, and cats have been cats. 

All reasonable people throughout history have been able to make these distinctions. They are based on provable definable facts. 

So when Rachel took that job which many people think was intended for a black person, did she take anything from them in her self identification?


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> *When someone self identified, regardless of intention, and they recieve a society benefit due to that self identification, by your definition it has become my business. *
> 
> I am competing in society for scarce resources. Since there is no way to prove people's intentions with self identification, there becomes no method to distinguish a good from bad, right from wrong.
> 
> This is why, for the history of mankind, men have been XY, women have been XX, dogs have been dogs, and cats have been cats.
> 
> All reasonable people throughout history have been able to make these distinctions. They are based on provable definable facts.
> 
> So when Rachel took that job which many people think was intended for a black person, did she take anything from them in her self identification?


First what benefit from society does someone take from you from just for self identifying as anything?

Second Racheal did not take a job that was intended for a black person.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> First what benefit from society does someone take from you from just for self identifying as anything?
> 
> Second Racheal did not take a job that was intended for a black person.


Well, let's all just jump into this with two feet without thinking about it and find out what benefits this could mean. Lets get the supreme court to write the right to self identify is fundamental and cannot be restricted. 

THEN we will find out if this "new" woman gets to apply for privilege as a woman or minority for the purposes of federal contracts. Heck, both. A white man could self identify as a black woman. That would probably help land a few contracts. Lets all find out together, then if it happens, we just tell all the real women and blacks oopsie. 

How far can it go? Thats the thread. 

But certain people dismiss all what if, right?


----------



## thericeguy

Stuff like this ...

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrea-t...ntify-as-a-cat-do-i-have-to-pay-income-taxes/


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Well, let's all just jump into this with two feet without thinking about it and find out what benefits this could mean. Lets get the supreme court to write the right to self identify is fundamental and cannot be restricted.
> 
> THEN we will find out if this "new" woman gets to apply for privilege as a woman or minority for the purposes of federal contracts. Heck, both. A white man could self identify as a black woman. That would probably help land a few contracts. Lets all find out together, then if it happens, we just tell all the real women and blacks oopsie.
> 
> How far can it go? Thats the thread.
> 
> But certain people dismiss all what if, right?


What benefit are they taking from you by just self identifying??


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> What benefit are they taking from you by just self identifying??


Asked and answered.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Asked and answered.


Well we have a break through. Excellant.


----------



## oneraddad

thericeguy said:


> When someone self identified, regardless of intention, and they recieve a society benefit due to that self identification, by your definition it has become my business.
> 
> I am competing in society for scarce resources. *Since there is no way to prove people's intentions with self identification, there becomes no method to distinguish a good from bad, right from wrong. *
> 
> This is why, for the history of mankind, men have been XY, women have been XX, dogs have been dogs, and cats have been cats.
> 
> All reasonable people throughout history have been able to make these distinctions. They are based on provable definable facts.
> 
> So when Rachel took that job which many people think was intended for a black person, did she take anything from them in her self identification?



How do you distinguish good from bad, right from wrong now ?


----------



## thericeguy

oneraddad said:


> How do you distinguish good from bad, right from wrong now ?


I do as an individual. That can be done. Public policy does not assign right or wrong. It assigns legal or illegal. 

The law is not morale and morality is not the law.


----------



## Jim Bunton

painterswife said:


> What benefit are they taking from you by just self identifying??


The benefit of using a public rest room without a member of the opposite sex being present. If this is not the way society believes it should be why are we arguing for transgenders to receive this treatment why aren't we just removing gender identification from all public accommodations? If it is discrimination to not allow a male who self identifies as a female to use the female showers is it not also sex discrimination not to let a male who identifies as a male use that same shower solely based of his sex?

Jim


----------



## painterswife

Jim Bunton said:


> The benefit of using a public rest room without a member of the opposite sex being present. If this is not the way society believes it should be why are we arguing for transgenders to receive this treatment why aren't we just removing gender identification from all public accommodations? If it is discrimination to not allow a male who self identifies as a female to use the female showers is it not also sex discrimination not to let a male who identifies as a male use that same shower solely because of his sex?
> 
> Jim


Actually if you read my post, I said just self identifying is different than actually using that identity to get something. 

Using a public restroom is a benifit everyone has right now.


----------



## Bubba1358

oneraddad said:


> How do you distinguish good from bad, right from wrong now ?


The same way people have for thousands of years: reason and natural law.

I believe that our descent into a quick-fix, sound-bite, me-first society has severely debilitated our collective ability to use sound reason in many circumstances.

This has reduced right and wrong into "feelings." Trouble with that is feelings change all the time. So the perception of right and wrong remains also in constant flux, to the point where people can't tell the difference. That leads to the cop-out, "Well, what's right for you isn't right for me." Wrong. There is one reality we all share, and you can't have competing standards of right and wrong that are both correct. Yet this is where we are. "I'm right because that's how I feel," facts be damned.

With that thinking, it's no wonder discussion goes nowhere - rather than conform ourselves to and accept reality for what it is, we all try to bend reality to our own will.

Everyone has become his own god.

...

And another thing: Isn't it strange that, for a society that puts so much emphasis on "science" as the end-all/be-all for life, we completely disregard the facts of physical sciences when having this identity discussion? I mean, it's not hard to objectively measure what a person really is. But we all "feel better" when everyone just plays pretend instead of bothering with those pesky facts and truths.


----------



## thericeguy

Jim Bunton said:


> The benefit of using a public rest room without a member of the opposite sex being present. If this is not the way society believes it should be why are we arguing for transgenders to receive this treatment why aren't we just removing gender identification from all public accommodations? If it is discrimination to not allow a male who self identifies as a female to use the female showers is it not also sex discrimination not to let a male who identifies as a male use that same shower solely based of his sex?
> 
> Jim


An argument made repeatedly and rejected by the people supporting trans access, though I never saw a reason given. All I have ever seen is nothing is stopping men from doing that now. Not sure I believe that and will not hire a lawyer or bother police to find out if a man can be charged with a crime for being in a female restroom. Wish someone on either side would post credible sources with an answer. 

I know that this push will get a shove and laws will start appearing in states if there indeed no law.


----------



## FarmerKat

Today my 5 year old daughter identifies as a cheetah. If she gets mad, she may change into a coyote. Do I have to cage her? 

The other day she identified as a doctor ... for some reason they discriminated against her and would not let her perform an open heart surgery. ... :hobbyhors


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Using *a* public restroom is a benifit everyone has right now.


Correct. But this has never been about using A restroom. It is about individual choice of WHAT restroom. Very fundamental difference that one word makes.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Correct. But this has never been about using A restroom. It is about individual choice of WHAT restroom. Very fundamental difference that one word makes.


And my post was not about restrooms at all.


----------



## Heritagefarm

FarmerKat said:


> Today my 5 year old daughter identifies as a cheetah. If she gets mad, she may change into a coyote. Do I have to cage her?
> 
> The other day she identified as a doctor ... for some reason they discriminated against her and would not let her perform an open heart surgery. ... :hobbyhors


That's terrible. You should sue for discrimination. I've seen parents sue for a lot less than that.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> Actually if you read my post, I said just self identifying is different than actually using that identity to get something.
> 
> Using a public restroom is a benifit everyone has right now.


Are you saying quote does not contain the word restroom, or that it is not your post?


----------



## Irish Pixie

FarmerKat said:


> Today my 5 year old daughter identifies as a cheetah. If she gets mad, she may change into a coyote. Do I have to cage her?
> 
> The other day she identified as a doctor ... for some reason they discriminated against her and would not let her perform an open heart surgery. ... :hobbyhors


Cute, and your daughter has a great imagination. Not relevant to the discussion in any way, but cute.  

What would you do in 5 years or so if she came to you and said she was born into the wrong body? That she has always felt she was a boy? Your answer to the question would be relevant to this discussion.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Cute, and your daughter has a great imagination. Not relevant to the discussion in any way, but cute.
> 
> What would you do in 5 years or so if she came to you and said she was born into the wrong body? That she has always felt she was a boy? Your answer to the question would be relevant to this discussion.


Do you have any training to determine the difference between imagination and what is not imagination?


----------



## thericeguy

Maybe a demonstration is in order. A 10 year old girl makes the following statements. Which are imagination and which are not?

I am a tree. 
I am a doctor. 
I am a dog.
I am a zombie. 
I am a space alien. 
I am God. 
I am a boy.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Do you have any training to determine the difference between imagination and what is not imagination?


Just that I'm the parent of two (one of which identifies LBGT) and the grandparent of three. You? 



thericeguy said:


> Maybe a demonstration is in order. A 10 year old girl makes the following statements. Which are imagination and which are not?
> 
> I am a tree.
> I am a doctor.
> I am a dog.
> I am a zombie.
> I am a space alien.
> I am God.
> I am a boy.


I _imagine_ the mother of the child in question would have to answer that. And the discussion is regarding a 5 year old so I can see them all being imagination in your scenario, plus the kid in question is a girl.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Just that I'm the parent of two (one of which identifies LBGT) and the grandparent of three. You?
> 
> 
> 
> I _imagine_ the mother of the child in question would have to answer that. And the discussion is regarding a 5 year old so I can see them all being imagination in your scenario, plus the kid in question is a girl.


You forwarded the clock 5 years on that 5 year old child in your post. That makes the child in YOUR post 10, unless also get to make up our own personalized math systems too. 

So the mother has to decide. Why were you able to tell that the 5 year old child was only using imagination, and was therfor not relavent to a discussion on a topic of self identification. Are you that 5 year olds mother? The other poster claimed to be the mother. 

So you must have employed something to conclude it was not self identification. Does it work similar to gaydar? Please explain. I will need your skill to help keep the pervs away from my children while not interfering with trans.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> You forwarded the clock 5 years on that 5 year old child in your post. That makes the child in YOUR post 10, unless also get to make up our own personalized math systems too.
> 
> So the mother has to decide. Why were you able to tell that the 5 year old child was only using imagination, and was therfor not relavent to a discussion on a topic of self identification. Are you that 5 year olds mother? The other poster claimed to be the mother.
> 
> So you must have employed something to conclude it was not self identification. Does it work similar to gaydar? Please explain. I will need your skill to help keep the pervs away from my children while not interfering with trans.


I know, and I also know that imagination changes as a kid gets older. It is much less likely for a kid to pretend they are anything at 10 than at 5. I thought that was obvious, guess not...

The rest of your post is rambling and a bit nonsensical so I'll pass on any further discussion, at least for now.


----------



## thericeguy

Yes, I expected that. 

You were able to read a printed word and determine across the internet to completely reject the statement of a child. 

And follow up that by saying only the mother can tell if a childs statement is self identification or imagination. 

Those two things collide badly. 

Then you change the age in my example because you do not want to explain how someone, anyone, can detetmine who is trans and who is not short of a complete physical and psychological workup by a trained doctor.


----------



## Bubba1358

If I may....

I think the point trying to be made here is that _nobody can tell for sure_.

We're now basing policy on the assumption that the individual (who's claiming to be something _other_ than their biology) is telling the truth, or is mentally ill. What's truth and what's illness? _Nobody can tell for sure._

The corollary for me is eating disorders. An anorexic truly believes s/he is fat, when all measurable biological indicators say otherwise. Rightly so, we treat for this condition, called .... wait for it ..... *body dysphoria*. Yet, a transgender truly believes s/he is another gender, when all measurable biological indicators say otherwise. We do NOT treat for this condition, called .... wait for it ..... *gender dysphoria*.



> Dysphoria (from Greek: &#948;&#973;&#963;&#966;&#959;&#961;&#959;&#962; (dysphoros), &#948;&#965;&#963;-, difficult, and &#966;&#941;&#961;&#949;&#953;&#957;, to bear) is a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphoria


BOTH dysphoriacs suspend belief in the physical world to instead live out their alternate reality. One we call "healthy" and "brave," and for the other we rightly get help.










I will never understand this backwardness.


----------



## Bubba1358

thericeguy said:


> ... explain how someone, anyone, can detetmine who is trans and who is not short of a complete physical and psychological workup by a trained doctor.


Nobody can. We are stuck where we *have* to take their word for it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

The disagreement over LGBT can go on forever with all posters not understanding why the other thinks what they do. 

The bottom line is that the United States v. Windsor gave LGBT rights. It may take another SCOTUS decision (barring any wishful deaths to justices not white and male) but LGBT will added to the protected classes to force other citizens to treat them as equals.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> The disagreement over LGBT can go on forever with all posters not understanding why the other thinks what they do.
> 
> The bottom line is that the United States v. Windsor gave LGBT rights. It may take another SCOTUS decision (barring any wishful deaths to justices not white and male) but LGBT will added to the protected classes to force other citizens to treat them as equals.


And you continue to avoid this question. 

How is making everyone with male anatomy use one restroom and all biological women a different restroom unequal treatment?


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> The disagreement over LGBT can go on forever with all posters *not understanding why* [1] the other thinks what they do.
> 
> The bottom line is that the United States v. Windsor *gave LGBT rights* [2]. It may take another SCOTUS decision (barring any wishful deaths to justices *not white and male* [3]) but LGBT will added to the protected classes to force other citizens to treat them as equals.


[1][2]From my POV, everyone already HAD the right to marry until then. Many simply chose not to exercise it, like folks who *don't* own guns or organize protests. Or vote. Or exercise religion. The right has always been there, but I feel like they wanted _more_ than equal treatment.

This ruling (again, from my POV [1]) did something radical - it damaged the building block of society. Marriage has always been, and will continue to be, for the benefit of society in that it brings forth new citizens. As we're seeing in Germany and elsewhere where replacement levels are not being matched, not having enough NEW citizens causes a nation to crumble from within. This ruling told those of us concerned with such antiquated ideologies as sustaining a nation that protecting families isn't that important. It felt, to me, like a giant middle finger to the fabric of society.

Hope that helps at least scratch the surface on respecting the other side.

[3] That statement is discriminatory based on race and sex.


----------



## Bubba1358

thericeguy said:


> How is making everyone with male anatomy use one restroom and all biological women a different restroom unequal treatment?


Beats the heck outta me.

Maybe because 3 out of 1,000 _might_ be offended?


----------



## watcher

painterswife said:


> My post was not about locker rooms. Is that clear enough for you?


Ok but you are still going to have to have some standards and someone to judge if the person meets those standards. 

So the questions are still valid. Who gets to set the standards and who gets to judge them and is there going to be some kind of ID for those who meet the standard and who is the one who checks for the ID?


----------



## thericeguy

Read a news story today about a Target boycott reaching 500,000 signatures. My wife has cut up and returned her Target card. Wonder how the stockholders are going to feel about this. 

This issue is playing out in the real world where real people with real families live. There is a pretty significant blowback, and it is new yet. 

No national news story yet about a peeping tom or molestation, photo and video taking. Its going to get extremely polarized in a way that will cross traditional party lines.


----------



## FarmerKat

Irish Pixie said:


> Cute, and your daughter has a great imagination. Not relevant to the discussion in any way, but cute.
> 
> What would you do in 5 years or so if she came to you and said she was born into the wrong body? That she has always felt she was a boy? Your answer to the question would be relevant to this discussion.


I was just trying to lighten up the mood. That's all 

I would tell her I love her and always will. It's simple when there is unconditional love.


----------



## painterswife

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-government-north-carolina-lgbt-law-violates-civil-38882208

The U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday that a North Carolina law limiting protections to LGBT people violates federal civil rights laws and can't be enforced.


----------



## dixiegal62

The boycott is at is over 1,750,000


----------



## Irish Pixie

painterswife said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-government-north-carolina-lgbt-law-violates-civil-38882208
> 
> The U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday that a North Carolina law limiting protections to LGBT people violates federal civil rights laws and can't be enforced.


Yay. :happy2:


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> The disagreement over LGBT can go on forever with all posters not understanding why the other thinks what they do.
> 
> The bottom line is that the United States v. Windsor gave LGBT rights. It may take another SCOTUS decision (barring any wishful deaths to justices not white and male) but LGBT will added to the protected classes to force other citizens to treat them as equals.


The question is where does it stop. If you can say you feel you should have been a man and therefore the government must treat you as one can you say you feel you should have been a different race and the government must treat you as such? 

I have to ask. If you had a child and at age 14 announced they had never felt 'right' as a human and always felt they were meant to be a dog and demanded you treat them the way they now identify would you do it? Would you allow them to not wear clothes in pubic, use the yard as their bathroom, wear a collar and be leashed when you go to the beach, etc. And if they refused to act like a human and continued to act like a dog would you think maybe, just maybe you should seek the help of a mental health professional?

Now what's the difference in someone 'feeling' they are the wrong species and feeling they are the wrong gender?


----------



## Bubba1358

thericeguy said:


> No national news story yet about a peeping tom or molestation, photo and video taking. Its going to get extremely polarized in a way that will cross traditional party lines.


Au contaraire:

http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534


> Seattle Parks and Recreation is facing a first-of-a-kind challenge to gender bathroom rules. A man undressed in a women's locker room, citing a new state rule that allows people to choose a bathroom based on gender identity.


http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender


> A sexual predator who falsely claimed to be transgender and preyed on women at two Toronto shelters was jailed indefinitely on Wednesday.


And here is the tale of a woman who feels discriminated against by her experience of the open door policies:
http://americansfortruth.com/2014/11/03/it-happened-to-me-how-transgender-bathroom-bills-discriminate-against-women-by-allowing-men-in-womens-spaces/

Maybe your feelings only matter if you're part of a 'protected group'? IDK.


----------



## Shine

Bubba1358 said:


> [1][2]From my POV, everyone already HAD the right to marry until then. Many simply chose not to exercise it, like folks who *don't* own guns or organize protests. Or vote. Or exercise religion. The right has always been there, but I feel like they wanted _more_ than equal treatment.


Something important is missing from this equation: 

What Marriage do they demand for them to be treated equal within?

To date, I have not heard the LGBT groups demand that the Churches that follow the scriptures allow them to marry on demand. Those people concerned are asking to be treated equal in allowing them to have the Government offered Civil Union. They call it a "marriage" even when it does not rise to the Holy Writ of Matrimony but still wish to call it a "marriage". Oh well. 

As long as it is only the state sanctioned civil unions that they demand to be made whole by or the Spaghetti god, or any of the other sorted regimes, I will butt out of their requests and leave them to their task(s). I really do not care that they might be granted equality within the state sanctioned civil union or other entities and then profess to be married, it still does not allow anyone to legitimately look at the color blue and then suggest that it is actually red.

The moment pressure is placed upon those of the Christian clergy to perform these rites then you will hear my opinions again.


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/us-government-north-carolina-lgbt-law-violates-civil-38882208
> 
> The U.S. Justice Department said Wednesday that a North Carolina law limiting protections to LGBT people violates federal civil rights laws and can't be enforced.


The US Justice department does not write law. It is part of the Executive branch. The article linked clearly states their letter does not carry the authority of law. It is the Obama administration threatening to remove federal funding to get what it wants BEFORE the supreme court can decide this issue. 

It is just another example in a LONG list where Obama thumbs his nose at the system and acts outside reasonable powers. 

The letter may as well say everyone is a space alien. Its just thug strongarming by someone trying build a legacy before being replaced.


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> Au contaraire:
> 
> http://www.krem.com/news/local/northwest/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/45412534
> 
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2014/02/26/predator-who-claimed-to-be-transgender-declared-dangerous-offender
> 
> 
> And here is the tale of a woman who feels discriminated against by her experience of the open door policies:
> http://americansfortruth.com/2014/11/03/it-happened-to-me-how-transgender-bathroom-bills-discriminate-against-women-by-allowing-men-in-womens-spaces/
> 
> Maybe your feelings only matter if you're part of a 'protected group'? IDK.


As I said, we may be witnessing the catalyst for the formation of a 3rd party. One that does not best represent the interests of fringe groups, be they gay or billionaires, but instead focuses on families trying to make a living and raise their kids the best they can. I can dream, right?


----------



## watcher

Interesting question. . .

A company has a policy to allow people to use the rest/locker room they wish. Then there is a sexual assault in said room. Would this make the company more legally liable than if they had a use the room to match your physical parts?

Seeing as how the courts have said you MUST allow people to pick my first thought is to say no. But OTOH having a policy which prevents stopping a male (most sexual predators are male after all) from entering a private area (bathrooms do not have security cameras because of privacy issues) where females are at least partially undress is the norm seems to be asking for trouble.

I'd think the quickest solution for businesses would be, where they are able, to stop offering public restrooms. The second would be to go back to the single bathroom with a locking door.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Bubba1358 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphoria
> 
> 
> BOTH dysphoriacs suspend belief in the physical world to instead live out their alternate reality. One we call "healthy" and "brave," and for the other we rightly get help.


Thank God, I'm not really Batman. Anyone want to buy a Cape? :lonergr:


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

dixiegal62 said:


> The boycott is at is over 1,750,000


Not to mention their Stock is suffering heavily...


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Not to mention their Stock is suffering heavily...


Well, they cant reverse policy. That would offend another group and they risk losing at least 163 shoppers.


----------



## Irish Pixie

"More than 1 million people may be roaring against Target's transgender-inclusive bathroom policy, but the possibility of long-term negative effects is slim, experts say."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...throom-transgender-brand-perception/83702928/

Time will tell. I shopped there yesterday, and the amount of shoppers seemed to be the same as usual. I even used the women's bathroom! No one peeked at me through the door jam. No perverts, nothing, it was uneventful.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> Interesting question. . .
> 
> A company has a policy to allow people to use the rest/locker room they wish. Then there is a sexual assault in said room. Would this make the company more legally liable than if they had a use the room to match your physical parts?
> 
> Seeing as how the courts have said you MUST allow people to pick my first thought is to say no. But OTOH having a policy which prevents stopping a male (most sexual predators are male after all) from entering a private area (bathrooms do not have security cameras because of privacy issues) where females are at least partially undress is the norm seems to be asking for trouble.
> 
> I'd think the quickest solution for businesses would be, where they are able, to stop offering public restrooms. The second would be to go back to the single bathroom with a locking door.


Did you happen to catch the posted image of how Kroger is handling it? Very reasonable IMO. 

Tort does not always follow criminal law. Tort liability is handled very differently. There are percentages of redponsibility. 10% of $300 million is still a big number.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> "More than 1 million people may be roaring against Target's transgender-inclusive bathroom policy, but the possibility of long-term negative effects is slim, experts say."
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...throom-transgender-brand-perception/83702928/
> 
> Time will tell. I shopped there yesterday, and the amount of shoppers seemed to be the same as usual. I even used the women's bathroom! No one peaked at me through the door jam. No perverts, nothing, it was uneventful.


Small sample size. 

Were you filmed by a guy who went in yesterday to install a tiny spy cam? Are you on the intetnet today on one of those hidden underground websites where those people stay hiding from the FBI.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Irish Pixie said:


> "More than 1 million people may be roaring against Target's transgender-inclusive bathroom policy, but the possibility of long-term negative effects is slim, experts say."
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...throom-transgender-brand-perception/83702928/
> 
> Time will tell. I shopped there yesterday, and the amount of shoppers seemed to be the same as usual. I even used the women's bathroom! No one peeked at me through the door jam. No perverts, nothing, it was uneventful.


I also had to use the bathroom at Aldi. The women's restroom was out of order so I used the men's and it was disgusting. :yuck: I won't willingly do that again, and come to think about it, that may be why everyone wants to use the women's bathroom.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> Did you happen to catch the posted image of how Kroger is handling it? Very reasonable IMO.
> 
> Tort does not always follow criminal law. Tort liability is handled very differently. There are percentages of redponsibility. 10% of $300 million is still a big number.


True but if you are forced at the point of a gun to do something then your liability is a lot smaller than if you decided to do it just because.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> True but if you are forced at the point of a gun to do something then your liability is a lot smaller than if you decided to do it just because.


I agree. How do you think the political climate will change when the first lawsuit gets won because a store was complying with federal policy? As soon as the first case gets won, 50% of TV offprime will become lawyers hunting clients. It will be almost hillarious. I say almost because families will be ruined as businesses who cannot pay for defense or judgements close.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by dixiegal62 View Post
> *The boycott* is at is over 1,750,000


No, the online voting about it is that high.

If you remove multiple votes, and those who voted but never shopped there anyway, it's far lower. 6 weeks from now it will be old news and things will return to normal


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> I agree. How do you think the political climate will change when the first lawsuit gets won because a store was complying with federal policy? As soon as the first case gets won, 50% of TV offprime will become lawyers hunting clients. It will be almost hillarious. I say almost because families will be ruined as businesses who cannot pay for defense or judgements close.


And the other 50% will be lawyers looking for places to sue because their bathrooms don't meet the legal requirements. Much like the ones who seek out businesses who don't meet 100% of the ADA rules and sue. There's a good living to be made suing businesses for not following federal regs because its next to impossible to follow them all.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> And the other 50% will be lawyers looking for places to sue because their bathrooms don't meet the legal requirements. Much like the ones who seek out businesses who don't meet 100% of the ADA rules and sue. There's a good living to be made suing businesses for not following federal regs because its next to impossible to follow them all.


Amen. Fastest way to riches? Lawsuits.


----------



## Declan

So one day I will have grandchildren and said grandchildren will grow up in a world without wedding cakes and public restrooms at this rate.


----------



## thericeguy

Declan said:


> So one day I will have grandchildren and said grandchildren will grow up in a world without wedding cakes and public restrooms at this rate.


Your grandchildren might not be American citizens. There might not be am America. Study the fall of the Roman empire. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## Declan

thericeguy said:


> Your grandchildren might not be American citizens. There might not be am America. Study the fall of the Roman empire. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.


That is fine with me quite frankly. America needs to break up into about 6 smaller nations or transition to provincial governments with the fed only being there for defense.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I self identify as a gryphon now. See my avatar?



thericeguy said:


> Your grandchildren might not be American citizens. There might not be am America. Study the fall of the Roman empire. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.


That's an interesting discussion. That's chase this rabbit down the hole. How far gone do you think we are? I don't think we're there yet. Worryingly, Romans became very worried about equal, gay, and animal rights right before they collapsed. I don't think that's what caused it, though - I think apathy caused it. Judging my the amount of aggravated voters at the booths this season, I think we've got another century or so of stability. 



Declan said:


> That is fine with me quite frankly. America needs to break up into about 6 smaller nations or transition to provincial governments with the fed only being there for defense.


Hm. I'm guessing you live in Taxas, cause Taxas has a pretty big image of themselves. (Get it?)


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I self identify as a gryphon now. See my avatar?
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting discussion. That's chase this rabbit down the hole. How far gone do you think we are? I don't think we're there yet. Worryingly, Romans became very worried about equal, gay, and animal rights right before they collapsed. I don't think that's what caused it, though - I think apathy caused it. Judging my the amount of aggravated voters at the booths this season, I think we've got another century or so of stability.
> 
> How far gone? 50%. This election might put us at 75. Hillary has stated she will put them Christians where they belong.
> 
> 
> Hm. I'm guessing you live in Taxas, cause Taxas has a pretty big image of themselves. (Get it?)


On order for this to be a sincere discussion, I must profess two perspectives; I am a Taxan Christian. Settled. 

At the decline of Roman empire, they were at the peak of sexual devience. It is called a Roman orgy in modern times for a reason. Eunichs. Homosexuality. They saw it as enlightened existence. It yielded an army with rampant STD infections from public bath houses. Hard to march on an enemy when you cant walk. 

As a Christian, I think a large segment of society is willingly or unknowing serving Lucifer to destroy what has been a God fearing nation thru sexual devience, just like Romans. 

As far as apathy, have you seen a voter participation stat lately?

All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

As far as how far gone, 50%. This election might go 75%. Hillary has publicly stated she will put Christians where they belong.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Declan said:


> So one day I will have grandchildren and said grandchildren will grow up in a world without wedding cakes and public restrooms at this rate.


Both will still be available to anyone who wants them


----------



## thericeguy

I will point out our nation is now selling aborted fetus parts as if they are dog food or a can of corn. 50% might be conservative.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Both will still be available to anyone who wants them


For someone who never ever does what if fantasies, you have remarkable future telling powers.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Both will still be available to anyone who wants them


Do you ever worry about the community you run your business in finding out about your views on an invisible man god, or boys showering with girls in school?


----------



## thericeguy

Crickets


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> I will point out our nation is now selling aborted fetus parts as if they are dog food or a can of corn. 50% might be conservative.


That's blatantly false. 
Why do you feel this need to spread misinformation aside from just trying to :stirpot: ?



> For someone who never ever does what if fantasies, you have remarkable future telling powers.


Get back to me when it's proven incorrect.
You're the one making all the dire predictions



> Do you ever worry about the community you run your business in finding out about your views on an *invisible man god*, or boys showering with girls in school?


Not at all. If they ask I will tell them, although it seldom comes up anywhere other than here. Do you have anything that shows that's not true also?



> Crickets


It may surprise you to learn I don't hang on your every word, just waiting to reply.

I figure you're just trying to boost your post count most of the time anyway.


----------



## Bubba1358

Bubba1358 said:


> ... The corollary for me is eating disorders. An anorexic truly believes s/he is fat, when all measurable biological indicators say otherwise. Rightly so, we treat for this condition, called .... wait for it ..... *body dysphoria*. Yet, a transgender truly believes s/he is another gender, when all measurable biological indicators say otherwise. We do NOT treat for this condition, called .... wait for it ..... *gender dysphoria*. ... BOTH dysphoriacs suspend belief in the physical world to instead live out their alternate reality. One we call "healthy" and "brave," and for the other we rightly get help....


Can anyone explain how transgenderism is substantially and fundamentally different than anorexia? I've asked this question twice, in two threads, and have received no answer. I'm curious.


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> Can anyone explain how transgenderism is substantially and fundamentally different than anorexia? I've asked this question twice, in two threads, and have received no answer. I'm curious.


I showed the wife the picture. We had a good laugh, then had our usual talk about how we need 5000 acres surrounded by high electric fence.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Can anyone explain how transgenderism is substantially and fundamentally different than anorexia? I've asked this question twice, in two threads, and have received no answer. I'm curious.


Basically, anorexia is an eating disorder where a person views themselves as having fat that only they can see. Gender identity/transgenderism is a condition in which a person was born in the wrong sex body. 

Did that help?


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> I will point out our nation is now selling aborted fetus parts as if they are dog food or a can of corn. 50% might be conservative.


That's an outright lie.


----------



## Shine

Irish Pixie said:


> Basically, anorexia is an eating disorder where a person views themselves as having fat that only they can see. Gender identity/transgenderism is a condition in which a person was born in the wrong sex body.
> 
> Did that help?


I'm pretty sure that was a right turn you did back there at Albuquerque....

I'll help. 

Anorexia [you provided this definition] an eating disorder where a person views themselves as having fat that only they can see

Gender Dysphoria [my definition] a gender disorder where a person views themselves as having genitalia that they think is improper.


----------



## oneraddad

Gender identity/transgenderism is a condition where a person views themselves as having a penis/vagina that only they can see ?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Shine said:


> I'm pretty sure that was a right turn you did back there at Albuquerque....
> 
> I'll help.
> 
> Anorexia [you provided this definition] an eating disorder where a person views themselves as having fat that only they can see
> 
> Gender Dysphoria [my definition] a gender disorder where a person views themselves as having genitalia that they think is improper.


Transgenderism has at least a basis in genetics and those that are transgender don't think they have invisible genitalia. They know they were born in the wrong body. Anorexia is not genetic. Well, not that I know of anyway- do you have a link that anorexia is genetic?

And again, if transgenderism is a mental illness so is believing in god. Ready to admit it yet?


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> That's an outright lie.


http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08/13/3691269/fetal-tissue-moral-case/

This article from an author in support of abortions seems to disagree with you. It states very clearly fetal tissue from abortions is changing hands. Planned Parenthood never denied, and in fact affirmed, that aborted fetus were being supplied to researchers. 

So it boils down to was it sold. Of course not. That would be illegal. PPbmay be many things, but unaware of the law and how to circumvent it is not one of them 


One only need pay this handling fee. 
And this lab fee. 
And this shipping fee. 
And this examination fee.
Ok, here is your absolutely "free" fetus for research. 


Yeah, and I will give you a free Cadillac. You only need to buy this pen for $90,000 to get your free gift.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> Basically, anorexia is an eating disorder where a person views themselves as having fat that only they can see. Gender identity/transgenderism is a condition in which a person was born in the wrong sex body.
> 
> Did that help?


Not really, but thank you for the attempt. The problem is that in both cases, there is no proof - other than the word of the individual.

The way I see it, both require the individual to have faith in something nobody else can quantify. Both cases deny physical realities: anorexia, the reality of body fat content and percentages; trangenderism, the reality of organs and chromosomes.

Simply re-stating a premise ("a condition in which a person was born in the wrong sex body") does not really prove a distinction.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Transgenderism has at least a basis in genetics and those that are transgender don't think they have invisible genitalia. They know they were born in the wrong body. Anorexia is not genetic. Well, not that I know of anyway- do you have a link that anorexia is genetic?
> 
> And again, if transgenderism is a mental illness so is believing in god. Ready to admit it yet?


Transgender is a genetic problem? Thats pretty outrageous.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> do you have a link that anorexia is genetic?


Of course:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010958/:


> Estimates from the most rigorous studies suggest that greater than 50 percent of the variance in liability to eating disorders and disordered eating behaviors can be accounted for by additive genetic effects.


and http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar02/genetic.aspx:


> Researchers have discovered biological evidence of a genetic underpinning to anorexia nervosa: genetic linkage on chromosome 1 for the complex psychiatric disorder.


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> Self identification for the purpose of being your true self is very different then self identifying for the sole purpose of getting something. Very easy to tell apart and only your business if they are trying to take something from you.





Bubba1358 said:


> Not really, but thank you for the attempt. The problem is that in both cases, there is no proof - other than the word of the individual.
> 
> *The way I see it, both require the individual to have faith in something nobody else can quantify. Both cases deny physical realities:* anorexia, the reality of body fat content and percentages; trangenderism, the reality of organs and chromosomes.
> 
> Simply re-stating a premise ("a condition in which a person was born in the wrong sex body") does not really prove a distinction.


Well I guess that means believing in God is a mental illness using your opinion.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/08/13/3691269/fetal-tissue-moral-case/
> 
> This article from an author in support of abortions seems to disagree with you. It states very clearly fetal tissue from abortions is changing hands. Planned Parenthood never denied, and in fact affirmed, that aborted fetus were being supplied to researchers.
> 
> So it boils down to was it sold. Of course not. That would be illegal. PPbmay be many things, but unaware of the law and how to circumvent it is not one of them
> 
> 
> One only need pay this handling fee.
> And this lab fee.
> And this shipping fee.
> And this examination fee.
> Ok, here is your absolutely "free" fetus for research.
> 
> 
> Yeah, and I will give you a free Cadillac. You only need to buy this pen for $90,000 to get your free gift.


Still an outright lie. You can perpetuate your lie or you can learn the truth, it's up to you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> Transgender is a genetic problem? Thats pretty outrageous.


Ah, proof you don't read links! I posted two on the other transgender thread that link transgender to genetics. I suggest you read them. 



Bubba1358 said:


> Not really, but thank you for the attempt. The problem is that in both cases, there is no proof - other than the word of the individual.
> 
> The way I see it, both require the individual to have faith in something nobody else can quantify. Both cases deny physical realities: anorexia, the reality of body fat content and percentages; trangenderism, the reality of organs and chromosomes.
> 
> Simply re-stating a premise ("a condition in which a person was born in the wrong sex body") does not really prove a distinction.





Bubba1358 said:


> Of course:
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3010958/:
> 
> 
> and http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar02/genetic.aspx:


Thank you. I was unaware of a genetic link. It's not conclusive, but there may be something there.

OK. Both anorexia and transgenderism may have a genetic basis. 

What does this change?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> Ah, proof you don't read links! I posted two on the other transgender thread that link transgender to genetics. I suggest you read them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I was unaware of a genetic link. It's not conclusive, but there may be something there.
> 
> OK. Both anorexia and transgenderism both may have a genetic basis.
> 
> What does this change?


It actually would help substantiate claims of both transgengerism and anorexia.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> It actually would help substantiate claims of both transgengerism and anorexia.


Yup. I just wanted to see if they would admit it.


----------



## flewism

Irish Pixie said:


> Transgenderism has at least a basis in genetics and those that are transgender don't think they have invisible genitalia. They know they were born in the wrong body. Anorexia is not genetic. Well, not that I know of anyway- do you have a link that anorexia is genetic?
> 
> And again, if transgenderism is a mental illness so is believing in god. Ready to admit it yet?





painterswife said:


> Well I guess that means believing in God is a mental illness using your opinion.


Know one has ever provided physical evidence that God doesn't exist either. People make opinionated cases of non-existence but no prove was supplied thus that is the true definition of faith, cannot prove or disprove existence.

There is physical evidence that a transgender person is not the sex they claim to be.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> Thank you. I was unaware of a genetic link. It's not conclusive, but there may be something there.
> 
> OK. Both anorexia and transgenderism may have a genetic basis.
> 
> What does this change?


Nothing, really. Especially my continued bewilderment as to why one is accepted and one is not.

Really though, how are these two so _substantially and fundamentally_ different to the point that one is a treated disease and the other a celebrated lifestyle?

I still do not see the glaring distinction that must exist if we are continue to separate these two conditions. That, in light of there being at least three to fourteen times as much prevalence of anorexia as there is transgenderism.

So again:

Is there any real proof of a fundamental distinction?

The answer has real consequences. If they are not really all that different, then this whole bathroom silliness is insane. We're (literally) then arguing for or against why mentally ill people can parade around wherever they feel like. If there IS a fundamental difference, then maybe we're on to something.

I've changed my mind before based on a coherent, rational, logically sound and inerrant argument before. I used to be in favor of the death penalty until I realized that it ran counter to my pro-life views in other areas. So, for the sake of philosophical consistency, I changed and have opposed the death penalty ever since. Can we do it again? 

As it stands, no real distinction has been shown.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> And again, if transgenderism is a mental illness so is believing in god. Ready to admit it yet?


Nope! Because I can prove God exists.


----------



## painterswife

flewism said:


> Know one has ever provided physical evidence that God doesn't exist either. People make opinionated cases of non-existence but no prove was supplied thus that is the true definition of faith, cannot prove or disprove existence.
> 
> There is physical evidence that a transgender person is not the sex they claim to be.


Transgender do not claim to be born into a different sex. They are perfectly aware of that. They believe though they *should be* a different sex.

Just as people claim there is a god. You see the similarities here don't you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Nope! Because I can prove God exists.


By all means, show your proof. Or is it proof only you can accept?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Nothing, really. Especially my continued bewilderment as to why one is accepted and one is not.
> 
> Really though, how are these two so _substantially and fundamentally_ different to the point that one is a treated disease and the other a celebrated lifestyle?
> 
> I still do not see the glaring distinction that must exist if we are continue to separate these two conditions. That, in light of there being at least three to fourteen times as much prevalence of anorexia as there is transgenderism.
> 
> So again:
> 
> Is there any real proof of a fundamental distinction?
> 
> The answer has real consequences. If they are not really all that different, then this whole bathroom silliness is insane. We're (literally) then arguing for or against why mentally ill people can parade around wherever they feel like. If there IS a fundamental difference, then maybe we're on to something.
> 
> I've changed my mind before based on a coherent, rational, logically sound and inerrant argument before. I used to be in favor of the death penalty until I realized that it ran counter to my pro-life views in other areas. So, for the sake of philosophical consistency, I changed and have opposed the death penalty ever since. Can we do it again?
> 
> As it stands, no real distinction has been shown.


Celebrated lifestyle? I don't see that at all, I see people that simply want to be acknowledged.


----------



## Irish Pixie

flewism said:


> Know one has ever provided physical evidence that God doesn't exist either. People make opinionated cases of non-existence but no prove was supplied thus that is the true definition of faith, cannot prove or disprove existence.
> 
> There is physical evidence that a transgender person is not the sex they claim to be.


Faith isn't proof. There has never been actual proof that god exists.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> By all means, show your proof. *Or is it proof only you can accept?*


Well, that depends. If I'm the only one to accept logic, then....


Here goes:

We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. _(for example, a plant is caused by the growth of a seedling, which is caused by germination, which is caused by moisture and ideal conditions, and the seed is caused by the maturity of parent plant, and so on)_

Nothing exists prior to itself. _(you did not exist before you were conceived in utero)_

Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself. _(neither the plant nor the person came into being through their own power or merit) _

If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect). _(no seedling, no plant. no conception, no person)_

Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. _(no first human, no you or I. no first tomato, no tomato seedlings)_

If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).

Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which we give the name of God.



Here it is a little simpler:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause, then there will be no others.

Therefore, a first cause exists that has caused everything else to come into being. This "First Cause" is called God.


----------



## ||Downhome||

thericeguy said:


> Transgender is a genetic problem? Thats pretty outrageous.


Well of coarse it is, they got the wrong Chromosome... LOL

But I suppose those who want to stick with it being genetic are OK being animals. You know Instinct, that hard coded Instruction that separates Animals from Humans. Not the opposable thumb.

They would also OK going back to serfdom, Your Fathers a Farmer ,you will be as well and your children and theirs.
Your born to it, in other words genetically predisposed to be a Farmer.

No people are not hard wired like that. I know people that can do brilliant things and their children are dumb as a box of rocks.
I also know people that are Dumb as a box of rocks and yet their children are amazingly smart and talented.

If genetics really factored, would not the "confused" not be a much higher percentage of the population? Same with Intellectuals? 

Of coarse one could argue, that the "confused" simply don't breed due to the nature of their condition. There by not perpetuating it.
So if again if it where truly genetic, after thousands of years would it not of already been lost from the gene pool?

On a different note we could claim Criminality is a genetic condition, or Pedophilia, for some odd reason no ones going to bat for those guys?

Perhaps Criminality,Pedophilia,and being "Confused" are all the same Genetic condition, just manifesting in different ways.

In closing I will leave you with this, The reason we no longer have Mental Hospitals is that most of the Mentally Ill are housed safely in the City Centers... I can give you a big thumbs up on mental Illness being Genetic, 
But to try and color it as something else , well nope.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> Faith isn't proof. There has never been actual proof that god exists.


Besides what I just wrote^, is eyewitness testimony considered acceptable proof? I can provide plenty of that as well.


----------



## ||Downhome||

Irish Pixie said:


> Faith isn't proof. There has never been actual proof that god exists.


Yes there is Just go out into nature.
If that is is not proof then you either are Blind or refuse to see.

I do not proscribe to a religion, though I have studied a few.

But I do believe in a Higher Power.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> Celebrated lifestyle? I don't see that at all, I see people that simply want to be acknowledged.


And I see people that want in my kids shower. I prefer real world boots hit the ground. I mentioned before this was a poor battleground to choose. You never even acknowledged I said it. 

You do not know how I feel about gays and how they are treated, lesbians, blacks, elderly, poor, yet you have concluded certain things about me based on two criteria; 1) I am a Christian 2) I dont want boys in bathrooms or showers with girls. 

I saif it before, also ignored, you and all fighting this fight, are alienating your allies.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Well, that depends. If I'm the only one to accept logic, then....
> 
> 
> Here goes:
> 
> We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. _(for example, a plant is caused by the growth of a seedling, which is caused by germination, which is caused by moisture and ideal conditions, and the seed is caused by the maturity of parent plant, and so on)_
> 
> Nothing exists prior to itself. _(you did not exist before you were conceived in utero)_
> 
> Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself. _(neither the plant nor the person came into being through their own power or merit) _
> 
> If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect). _(no seedling, no plant. no conception, no person)_
> 
> Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. _(no first human, no you or I. no first tomato, no tomato seedlings)_
> 
> If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
> 
> That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
> 
> *Therefore* efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
> 
> *Therefore* it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which we give the name of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is a little simpler:
> 
> 1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
> 2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
> 3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
> 4. If there be no first cause, then there will be no others.
> 
> Therefore, a first cause exists that has caused everything else to come into being. This "First Cause" is called God.


Very well thought out, much better than many people can manage!
However, I've highlighted the two parts I'm not quite sure I get.
If everything has to have had an efficient cause, it stands to reason an efficient cause DID exist.
However, we are reasonably sure efficient causes do extend very far into the past. Taking into account other variables like a species natural tendency for change over time, we can conclude that few efficient causes are the same as they were 1M years ago (MYA).
Therefore, I do not find evidence for there NOT to be a continuous stream of efficient causes.
To which end we give the First Cause the term Spontaneous Genesis. Or micro-evolution. Or abiogenesis. Several other, debated terms come to mind.

How do we know the First Cause was God, or Evolution?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Well, that depends. If I'm the only one to accept logic, then....
> 
> 
> Here goes:
> 
> We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. _(for example, a plant is caused by the growth of a seedling, which is caused by germination, which is caused by moisture and ideal conditions, and the seed is caused by the maturity of parent plant, and so on)_
> 
> Nothing exists prior to itself. _(you did not exist before you were conceived in utero)_
> 
> Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself. _(neither the plant nor the person came into being through their own power or merit) _
> 
> If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect). _(no seedling, no plant. no conception, no person)_
> 
> Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. _(no first human, no you or I. no first tomato, no tomato seedlings)_
> 
> If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
> 
> That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
> 
> Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
> 
> Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which we give the name of God.
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is a little simpler:
> 
> 1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
> 2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
> 3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
> 4. If there be no first cause, then there will be no others.
> 
> Therefore, a first cause exists that has caused everything else to come into being. This "First Cause" is called God.





Bubba1358 said:


> Besides what I just wrote^, is eyewitness testimony considered acceptable proof? I can provide plenty of that as well.


Nope, no eye witness testimony. It is inherently faulty, and is based on the emotion of the witness. 

I feel the pretty much the same as Heritage Farm, personally I'd leave off god entirely and say what you described is evolution, but I'll bow to his explanation.


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> Very well thought out, much better than many people can manage!
> However, I've highlighted the two parts I'm not quite sure I get.
> If everything has to have had an efficient cause, it stands to reason an efficient cause DID exist.
> However, we are reasonably sure efficient causes do extend very far into the past. Taking into account other variables like a species natural tendency for change over time, we can conclude that few efficient causes are the same as they were 1M years ago (MYA).
> Therefore, I do not find evidence for there NOT to be a continuous stream of efficient causes.


Thank you. 

You need to go back a lot farther than 1M years. What caused life to emerge in the first place? What caused those conditions to be present in just the right way? What caused the conditions that made _those_ conditions? Keep on going, all the way back to the singularity.

There is only one efficient cause that DID exist.


----------



## Irish Pixie

thericeguy said:


> And I see people that want in my kids shower. I prefer real world boots hit the ground. I mentioned before this was a poor battleground to choose. You never even acknowledged I said it.
> 
> You do not know how I feel about gays and how they are treated, lesbians, blacks, elderly, poor, yet you have concluded certain things about me based on two criteria; 1) I am a Christian 2) I dont want boys in bathrooms or showers with girls.
> 
> I saif it before, also ignored, you and all fighting this fight, are alienating your allies.


Please don't tell me how I feel about you or anything else. I don't personally care how you feel about gays, blacks, the elderly, the poor etc. unless you are discriminating against them. I _absolutely_ do not care if you're christian, it's none of my business, I have no problems with the religious unless they annoy me with their dogma. 

And since you are annoying me, although not with religion, I will say goodbye for now.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> Nope, no eye witness testimony. It is inherently faulty, and is based on the emotion of the witness.


Fair enough.

FWIW, this is the same reason I don't take a transgender's claim as gospel.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> How do we know the First Cause was God, or Evolution?


For me, I look to science to prove God exists. I find it statistically improbable that this planet randomly happened to be the correct distance from the sun, covered with the correct protective layers, filled with the proper gases as air, with enough biodiversity to create what I see. Not randomly. You can call it God, intelligent design, alien creation, or any other term. What I cant call it is random. 

Why are we unable to find any sign of life anywhere but here? If molecules can spontaneously coalesce into more complex forms, then adapt to the environment, would we not find life on the moon? Mars?

I find it remarkable that we are the perfect distance from the sun, orbited by a perfectly sized moon at the perfect distance, to create a solar eclipse. Not random. 

I find water interesting. Most liquids increase in density when they transform into a solid. The solid sinks when suspended in its liquid form. Life as we know it would be far different if water held this property. Ice sheets would sink killing most life forms below it. Our oxygen supply would be greatly reduced. Our food supply as well. I do not think it random that 70% of our planet is covered in this remarkable substance. 

No, its not random. For me, science proves it.


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> ... I have no problems with the religious unless they annoy me with their dogma. ...


See how much we have in common?


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> FWIW, this is the same reason I don't take a transgender's claim as gospel.


If only I could "like" this about 13 billion times.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> See how much we have in common?


I have a cat named Bubba too.


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I have a cat named Bubba too.


Does it think of itself as male or female?


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> I have a cat named Bubba too.


:nanner: :nanner: :nanner:

That's actually my nickname. I was 12 lb. 8 oz. at birth. It kinda stuck.

I also helped my high school history teacher win a bet. She was talking with a friend about names, and how no masculine names ended in the letter 'a'. She disagreed, and made a small wager. The friend accepted, asked for the name, and dropped his jaw at the oh-so-obvious answer: Bubba.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> Basically, anorexia is an eating disorder where a person views themselves as having fat that only they can see. Gender identity/transgenderism is a condition in which a person was born in the wrong sex body.
> 
> Did that help?


Would you not say they are both mental issues. In one case the person mental image is of a fat person in the other it is a different gender.


----------



## watcher

I still want to know 

Who gets the power to decide who is allowed to use _"the other"_ bath/locker room!!

The pro-pick your own side says there is a way to tell if that guy standing in the room is a honest mixed up man or a man who likes to see women in the bath/locker room. No one has explained:

1) How you tell one from the other.
2) Who gets to set the standard for telling one from the other.
3) What kind of ID does the mixed up guy have to have.
4) Who gets to, or _has to_, check the IDs and/or genitalia of the people coming in to make sure the mixed up men are allowed but the voyeurs are kept out.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> For me, I look to science to prove God exists. I find it statistically improbable that this planet randomly happened to be the correct distance from the sun, covered with the correct protective layers, filled with the proper gases as air, with enough biodiversity to create what I see. Not randomly. You can call it God, intelligent design, alien creation, or any other term. What I cant call it is random.
> 
> Why are we unable to find any sign of life anywhere but here? If molecules can spontaneously coalesce into more complex forms, then adapt to the environment, would we not find life on the moon? Mars?
> 
> I find it remarkable that we are the perfect distance from the sun, orbited by a perfectly sized moon at the perfect distance, to create a solar eclipse. Not random.
> 
> I find water interesting. Most liquids increase in density when they transform into a solid. The solid sinks when suspended in its liquid form. Life as we know it would be far different if water held this property. Ice sheets would sink killing most life forms below it. Our oxygen supply would be greatly reduced. Our food supply as well. I do not think it random that 70% of our planet is covered in this remarkable substance.
> 
> No, its not random. For me, science proves it.





Bubba1358 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> You need to go back a lot farther than 1M years. What caused life to emerge in the first place? What caused those conditions to be present in just the right way? What caused the conditions that made _those_ conditions? Keep on going, all the way back to the singularity.
> 
> There is only one efficient cause that DID exist.


Very interesting. Your arguments are way I do not out-of-hand dismiss the existence of God, because doing so would make me more closed-minded. Perhaps there is a Creator, and initiated the Big Bang, started evolution, and maybe it only took him 6 days of his time because he lives in an extra-dimensional space. Time is such a fickle thing, anyway. It makes perfect sense when you're at work, chewing through some hours, but if you think about... What the heck is making everything go forward all the time?

The odds of us being in exactly the right spot at th right time are certainly slim, but it can still be explained by the laws of large numbers. When you have so many stars and planets and systems in the universe, the odds are good, perhaps, that at least one planet would have life on it. 

For me, evolution can be as hard to swallow as creation. Both require faith, in my opinion; one in a deity, one in science.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Very interesting. Your arguments are way I do not out-of-hand dismiss the existence of God, because doing so would make me more closed-minded. Perhaps there is a Creator, and initiated the Big Bang, started evolution, and maybe it only took him 6 days of his time because he lives in an extra-dimensional space. Time is such a fickle thing, anyway. It makes perfect sense when you're at work, chewing through some hours, but if you think about... What the heck is making everything go forward all the time?
> 
> The odds of us being in exactly the right spot at th right time are certainly slim, but it can still be explained by the laws of large numbers. When you have so many stars and planets and systems in the universe, the odds are good, perhaps, that at least one planet would have life on it.
> 
> For me, evolution can be as hard to swallow as creation. Both require faith, in my opinion; one in a deity, one in science.


You are a reasonable person, demonstrated by your words. I ask you to put that reason on this question. 

First, a premise. If you detonate a hand grenade, an explosion of material from a central location, all material moves outward at a velocity, maintaining distance between individual objects. 

Now a question. Why is there evidence of collisions following the big bang? Craters on the moon would be a simplistic example of this evidence.


----------



## thericeguy

There is a joke I want to share. 

Years in the future, scientists have discovered how to make life. Armed with this knowledge, they confront Jesus. 

Scientists: You are no diety. We know your trick. We can make life. 

Jesus: Show me. 

The scientists take up a bit up clay and start to mold it into a form......

Jesus: Excuse me fellas, but could you get your own clay please.


----------



## thericeguy

Care to discuss what science refers to as "mitochondrial eve"?


----------



## Bubba1358

thericeguy said:


> First, a premise. If you detonate a hand grenade, an explosion of material from a central location, all material moves outward at a velocity, maintaining distance between individual objects.
> 
> Now a question. Why is there evidence of collisions following the big bang? Craters on the moon would be a simplistic example of this evidence.


Because, in the hand grenade example, the grenade is detonated from a "central location." This assumes that the material can radiate out in all directions, and it assumes that your borders are beyond the reach of the grenade.

With the BB, you not only had mass expanding, but space itself. The universe has a finite 'edge,' if you will, that has been expanding since the BB. Early on, though, space was a lot smaller, and therefore the objects were in closer proximity and much more likely to collide. Furthermore, this edge is curved (or so we think), so objects that approach it are merely redirected. Your analogy of the grenade assumes that it follows Newtonian physics, particularly the fact that once it hits a wall (given that it's shrapnel, after all) it lodges itself in and stops. In the universe, this doesn't happen, because there IS no wall. The objects continue to hurtle through space, never reaching a solid, physical ending point. Also, gravity of very large objects plays a part in attracting collisions. Comet orbits, for example, are often elliptical - one gets the sense that they are 'trapped' circling a star, even when the orbit draws them very far away, the comets eventually slow down, turn, and begin to accelerate and hurtle back toward the star.

The grenade analogy actually works very well, but first you have to assume that the pieces don't stop moving. Beginning with "Imagine a rubber room where all objects bounce off the walls with zero net loss of momentum" would make it really hold up well. 

And then, yes, the laws of averages and large numbers would indicate that the shrapnel would indeed collide with itself, and often.


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> Because, in the hand grenade example, the grenade is detonated from a "central location." This assumes that the material can radiate out in all directions, and it assumes that your borders are beyond the reach of the grenade.
> 
> With the BB, you not only had mass expanding, but space itself. The universe has a finite 'edge,' if you will, that has been expanding since the BB. Early on, though, space was a lot smaller, and therefore the objects were in closer proximity and much more likely to collide. Furthermore, your analogy of the grenade assumes that it follows Newtonian physics, particularly the fact that once it hits a wall (given that it's shrapnel, after all) it lodges itself in and stops. In the universe, this doesn't happen, because there IS no wall. The objects continue to hurtle through space, never reaching a solid, physical ending point.
> 
> The grenade analogy actually works very well, but first you have to assume that the pieces don't stop moving. Beginning with "Imagine a rubber room where all objects bounce off the walls with zero net loss of momentum" would make it really hold up well.
> 
> And then, yes, the laws of averages and large numbers would indicate that the shrapnel would indeed collide with itself, and often.


Before the universe itself expanded, when its walls were smaller as you describe, what was outside the walls? The human mind is actually not capable of understanding nothing. It took us a very long time to invent the 0 for math. 

I always thought the big bang sent material hurtling into infinate space. This would eliminate the possibility of a bounce, and thus make a collision impossible. Maybe I understand the theory wrong. I do not study it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> You are a reasonable person, demonstrated by your words. I ask you to put that reason on this question.
> 
> First, a premise. If you detonate a hand grenade, an explosion of material from a central location, all material moves outward at a velocity, maintaining distance between individual objects.
> 
> Now a question. Why is there evidence of collisions following the big bang? Craters on the moon would be a simplistic example of this evidence.


You'll have to be more specific. There are several things that involve the Big Bang and collisions. Strictly speaking, craters on the moon are from bits of rock floating randomly through the solar system, so how does it relate?



thericeguy said:


> Care to discuss what science refers to as "mitochondrial eve"?


Sure.


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> Perhaps there is a Creator, and initiated the Big Bang, started evolution, and maybe it only took him 6 days of his time because he lives in an extra-dimensional space. Time is such a fickle thing, anyway. It makes perfect sense when you're at work, chewing through some hours, but if you think about... What the heck is making everything go forward all the time?


Time is indeed a funny thing, and NOT a constant. Time slows down as you travel closer and closer to the speed of light. Y'all remember learning about limits in high school math, right? It's like as the graph goes out toward infinity, the speed of light stays constant but time slows as the observer travels faster. This same principle is why the ISS is .007 seconds off of Earth - they're travelling faster than we are!

We know what happens (science), but not why it happens (philosophy).


----------



## thericeguy

Mitochondria are a component to cells. Forgive me for forgetting their cell function. It has been a very long time. Possibly cell respiration. 

It is passed by mothers only as I recall. Again, Mol Bio was long ago. Since we all share the exact same copy of mitochondria, this estsblishes a common female ancestor for every human. 

Christians call her Eve. Scientists call her mitochondrial eve. My point being only that science, for me, only supports my beliefs. 

I agree there is more than one interpretation of that evidence. What is striking to me is there is a rather large group of well funded individuals rather determined to prove my beliefs are horse puckey, and they cannot. Their facts align almost perfectly with the historical account of the Bible.


----------



## thericeguy

While I have enjoyed chatting with you, as you are able to acknowledge an opposing view may have merit while maintaining your own beliefs, unlike what happens with some others, I have a garden to attend to for a bit. 

Have a great day. I will stop in later hoping for more pleasant debate.


----------



## farmrbrown

thericeguy said:


> Mitochondria are a component to cells. Forgive me for forgetting their cell function. It has been a very long time. Possibly cell respiration.
> 
> It is passed by mothers only as I recall. Again, Mol Bio was long ago. Since we all share the exact same copy of mitochondria, this estsblishes a common female ancestor for every human.
> 
> Christians call her Eve. Scientists call her mitochondrial eve. My point being only that science, for me, only supports my beliefs.
> 
> I agree there is more than one interpretation of that evidence. What is striking to me is there is a rather large group of well funded individuals rather determined to prove my beliefs are horse puckey, and they cannot. Their facts align almost perfectly with the historical account of the Bible.



Very few people know this much detail about both the Bible AND science, so the logic is hard to reconcile with the emotional element of bias.
Even many Christians are confused as to why Eve was named for "the mother of all living", believing this must be because Genesis tells us she was the first woman created (ignoring the previous verses) and naturally God was sanctioning incest to reproduce, which He never did.
Naturally, this results in the truth being attacked from both sides of the evolution/creation debate, LOL.
Those of us who have studied in depth, have gained an assurance that serves us well, even as the prince of this earthly realm rules his chaotic kingdom.
One day all will be revealed, until then, we can only strive to the best we can with what God has given to us, be it material riches or food for our soul.
Best wishes on your journey.


----------



## Bubba1358

thericeguy said:


> Before the universe itself expanded, when its walls were smaller as you describe, what was outside the walls? The human mind is actually not capable of understanding nothing. It took us a very long time to invent the 0 for math.
> 
> I always thought the big bang sent material hurtling into infinate space. This would eliminate the possibility of a bounce, and thus make a collision impossible. Maybe I understand the theory wrong. I do not study it.


No worries. 

I have studied it extensively, and have a degree in physics, FWIW.

At the time of the singularity, nothing physical existed outside of an infinitesimally small point that contained all matter and energy in the entire universe.

_Empty space did not exist yet. _(Try to wrap your brain around THAT one!) The laws of physics did not exist. Mater, electrons, quarks, etc. - these were all contained within the singularity.

The BB created not only all matter as we know it, but also all physical laws, time, and space itself.

If the fabric of empty space is actually nothing (it is), then how come nothing didn't even exist before the BB?

But space is NOT infinite. It is contained. We have no way of detecting or measuring this 'edge,' but we know it must exist because if it didn't, many of our laws would break down. We actually DO have evidence that it is expanding - which means the edge is being pushed farther out.

Eventually (maybe in another 13.8 billion years), a state will be reached in which acceleration slows down and gravity begins to pull it all back again. It will begin to shrink. However, it will never reach the point of the singularity again. The universe will be unable to retract itself back to a simultaneously infinitely large (mass) and small (space) point ever again. The universe has a finite beginning, and no anticipated _true_ end.

This^ is all what the science tells us.

This is remarkably consistent with Christian theories on the nature of individual human life - that it has a defined beginning, but no true defined end. It meshes quite nicely with the concept of a creator making the universe and setting it in motion. Since what we create reflects ourselves, it is reasonable to assume that creation reflects the nature of the creator - in this particular case, that nature is infinite (the universe as a created mechanism).

Did I just prove God exists two days in a row?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bubba1358 said:


> No worries.
> 
> I have studied it extensively, and have a degree in physics, FWIW.
> 
> At the time of the singularity, nothing physical existed outside of an infinitesimally small point that contained all matter and energy in the entire universe.
> 
> _Empty space did not exist yet. _(Try to wrap your brain around THAT one!) The laws of physics did not exist. Mater, electrons, quarks, etc. - these were all contained within the singularity.
> 
> The BB created not only all matter as we know it, but also all physical laws, time, and space itself.
> 
> If the fabric of empty space is actually nothing (it is), then how come nothing didn't even exist before the BB?
> 
> But space is NOT infinite. It is contained. We have no way of detecting or measuring this 'edge,' but we know it must exist because if it didn't, many of our laws would break down. We actually DO have evidence that it is expanding - which means the edge is being pushed farther out.
> 
> Eventually (maybe in another 13.8 billion years), a state will be reached in which acceleration slows down and gravity begins to pull it all back again. It will begin to shrink. However, it will never reach the point of the singularity again. The universe will be unable to retract itself back to a simultaneously infinitely large (mass) and small (space) point ever again. The universe has a finite beginning, and no anticipated _true_ end.
> 
> This^ is all what the science tells us.
> 
> This is remarkably consistent with Christian theories on the nature of individual human life - that it has a defined beginning, but no true defined end. It meshes quite nicely with the concept of a creator making the universe and setting it in motion. Since what we create reflects ourselves, it is reasonable to assume that creation reflects the nature of the creator - in this particular case, that nature is infinite (the universe as a created mechanism).
> 
> Did I just prove God exists two days in a row?



Yeah, but do you know how hard it is to wrap your mind around a physics lesson taught by a Professor Bubba?

:hysterical:

Don't ya just love that?
:happy2:


----------



## Bubba1358

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, but do you know how hard it is to wrap your mind around a physics lesson taught by a Professor Bubba?
> 
> :hysterical:
> 
> Don't ya just love that?
> :happy2:


I have an idea how hard it is by the 'gears turning' expression my kids give me. :huh:


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> No worries.
> 
> I have studied it extensively, and have a degree in physics, FWIW.
> 
> At the time of the singularity, nothing physical existed outside of an infinitesimally small point that contained all matter and energy in the entire universe.
> 
> _Empty space did not exist yet. _(Try to wrap your brain around THAT one!) The laws of physics did not exist. Mater, electrons, quarks, etc. - these were all contained within the singularity.
> 
> The BB created not only all matter as we know it, but also all physical laws, time, and space itself.
> 
> If the fabric of empty space is actually nothing (it is), then how come nothing didn't even exist before the BB?
> 
> But space is NOT infinite. It is contained. We have no way of detecting or measuring this 'edge,' but we know it must exist because if it didn't, many of our laws would break down. We actually DO have evidence that it is expanding - which means the edge is being pushed farther out.
> 
> Eventually (maybe in another 13.8 billion years), a state will be reached in which acceleration slows down and gravity begins to pull it all back again. It will begin to shrink. However, it will never reach the point of the singularity again. The universe will be unable to retract itself back to a simultaneously infinitely large (mass) and small (space) point ever again. The universe has a finite beginning, and no anticipated _true_ end.
> 
> This^ is all what the science tells us.
> 
> This is remarkably consistent with Christian theories on the nature of individual human life - that it has a defined beginning, but no true defined end. It meshes quite nicely with the concept of a creator making the universe and setting it in motion. Since what we create reflects ourselves, it is reasonable to assume that creation reflects the nature of the creator - in this particular case, that nature is infinite (the universe as a created mechanism).
> 
> Did I just prove God exists two days in a row?


I have no means to debate such a topic with you. I am not a physicist. But with my simple skills, I found one point that did not jive with my logic. I am not trying to misquote you. Just dont feel like backspacing 90%. 

You said there must be an edge because all our physics laws break down if not. 

I would point out the answer to 5/0 is "undefined" because our math system is unable to provide an answer. This does not stop us from solving 2+2 or building a 100 story building that does not fall down. Our "laws" are not universal truths. 

How did I do at an attempt to debate with a physicist?


----------



## Bubba1358

Bubba1358 said:


> No worries.
> 
> I have studied it extensively, and have a degree in physics, FWIW.
> 
> At the time of the singularity, nothing physical existed outside of an infinitesimally small point that contained all matter and energy in the entire universe.
> 
> _Empty space did not exist yet. _(Try to wrap your brain around THAT one!) The laws of physics did not exist. Mater, electrons, quarks, etc. - these were all contained within the singularity.
> 
> The BB created not only all matter as we know it, but also all physical laws, time, and space itself.
> 
> If the fabric of empty space is actually nothing (it is), then how come nothing didn't even exist before the BB?
> 
> But space is NOT infinite. It is contained. We have no way of detecting or measuring this 'edge,' but we know it must exist because if it didn't, many of our laws would break down. We actually DO have evidence that it is expanding - which means the edge is being pushed farther out.
> 
> Eventually (maybe in another 13.8 billion years), a state will be reached in which acceleration slows down and gravity begins to pull it all back again. It will begin to shrink. However, it will never reach the point of the singularity again. The universe will be unable to retract itself back to a simultaneously infinitely large (mass) and small (space) point ever again. The universe has a finite beginning, and no anticipated _true_ end.
> 
> This^ is all what the science tells us.
> 
> This is remarkably consistent with Christian theories on the nature of individual human life - that it has a defined beginning, but no true defined end. It meshes quite nicely with the concept of a creator making the universe and setting it in motion. Since what we create reflects ourselves, it is reasonable to assume that creation reflects the nature of the creator - in this particular case, that nature is infinite (the universe as a created mechanism).
> 
> Did I just prove God exists two days in a row?



Part II.

Another interesting thing that follows from this.

If creation reflects the creator (as in the classic example of how a watch indicates a watchmaker), then the character of the creator in inherently reflected in creation. But the creator in infinite, yet the universe is finite.

To the Christian, this dichotomy is resolves in the person of Jesus Christ. Since he is both at once God and man (in the same way that light is both a wave and a particle). The finite, created nature of the universe is a reflection of the finite nature of Christ's person (like the finite mass of a light particle). The infinite nature of God is reflected in the infinite nature of both time and the created universe. Thus three aspects of of the universe (infinite duration, finite physical constraints, and infinite time) are reflected in what Christians call the trinity - the creator, the incarnation, and the spirit.

:hijacked:


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> You'll have to be more specific. There are several things that involve the Big Bang and collisions. Strictly speaking, craters on the moon are from bits of rock floating randomly through the solar system, so how does it relate?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.


It relates because no piece of the grenade would collide with another piece even projecting their paths out to infinity, unless something changed their paths. What is that something?

Seems we have a resident physicist to explain that. Who would have thunk it possible.

Edit: and he is named Bubba. I wonder if he has a four wheel drive


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba, your going to melt my face. 

Do you know where I find God? In a tomato seed. He speaks to me there. People say things like "I can grow tomatoes". Really? What did you do to cause that tiny spec of seemingly a dead thing to turn into a tomato plant? That hull splits open and out comes a thing which develops roots and leaves, knowing which way up is. Noone grows tomatoes. We plant tomato seeds. 

The plan that involves creation mskes that seed turn into a tomato. It fulfills Gods promise of true to it's kind.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Nope! Because I can prove God exists.


No, you really can't.
You'll just rattle off some rhetoric and say, "See, that proves it"

Edited to add: I see you already did exactly what I predicted.


----------



## Bubba1358

thericeguy said:


> I have no means to debate such a topic with you. I am not a physicist. But with my simple skills, I found one point that did not jive with my logic. I am not trying to misquote you. Just dont feel like backspacing 90%.
> 
> You said there must be an edge because all our physics laws break down if not.
> 
> I would point out the answer to 5/0 is "undefined" because our math system is unable to provide an answer. This does not stop us from solving 2+2 or building a 100 story building that does not fall down. Our "laws" are not universal truths.
> 
> How did I do at an attempt to debate with a physicist?


Inability to divide by 0 is a methematical law.

We are so far IN the universe that we cannot detect the edge of it. Yet, we know that objects are expanding based on tracking the movement of galaxies and whatnot. 

But think of it this way. In an explosion, the waves and particles radiate out in a spherical way. The universe, then, must also be spherical in shape, if the BB is true. A sphere has an end.


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> No, you really can't.
> You'll just rattle off some rhetoric and say, "See, that proves it"
> 
> Edited to add: I see you already did exactly what I predicted.


I'm afraid I don't follow. Can you please specify which part(s) of my two proofs is false, wrong, or illogical? I'd be happy to explain in more detail.

Also, can you please prove me wrong and show how God does *not* exist?


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> Inability to divide by 0 is a methematical law.
> 
> We are so far IN the universe that we cannot detect the edge of it. Yet, we know that objects are expanding based on tracking the movement of galaxies and whatnot.
> 
> But think of it this way. In an explosion, the waves and particles radiate out in a spherical way. The universe, then, must also be spherical in shape, if the BB is true. A sphere has an end.


What disproves an explosion inside an already infinite space? What evidence is there of a wall?


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> I'm afraid I don't follow. Can you please specify which part(s) of my two proofs is false, wrong, or illogical? I'd be happy to explain in more detail.
> 
> Also, can you please prove me wrong and show how God does *not* exist?


It is an unprovable truth. You and I must accept. Truth can only be seen after exercising faith. That is why we call it faith.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> I'm afraid I don't follow. Can you please specify which part(s) of my two proofs is false, wrong, or* illogical*? I'd be happy to explain in more detail.
> 
> Also, can you please prove me wrong and show how God does *not* exist?


They don't prove the existence of any "supreme being".
It just states that's *what people call* what they don't understand.
You even used those words.

It's illogical to assume such a "being", with such "power", would have any interest in humans.

It's far more likely humans made it all up to explain the unknown, since "god" has had (and still has) many different meanings to everyone, and everyone thinks theirs is the only "true" one


----------



## thericeguy

I will add as a point of contention, that the human mind is an incapable of fully understanding infinity as nothing. They are extremed that lie outside human experience. I do not find it shocking we feel the need to assign an edge to our universe. Our research will reflect our limited concepts.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't prove the existence of any "supreme being".
> It just states that's *what people call* what they don't understand.
> You even used those words.
> 
> It's illogical to assume such a "being", with such "power", would have any interest in humans.
> 
> It's far more likely humans made it all up to explain the unknown, since "god" has had (and still has) many different meanings to everyone, and everyone thinks theirs is the only "true" one


As a weak minded human, I am thankful I will not have to spend eternity listening to you. Jesus is merciful indeed.


----------



## farmrbrown

thericeguy said:


> I have no means to debate such a topic with you. I am not a physicist. But with my simple skills, I found one point that did not jive with my logic. I am not trying to misquote you. Just dont feel like backspacing 90%.
> 
> You said there must be an edge because all our physics laws break down if not.
> 
> I would point out the answer to 5/0 is "undefined" because our math system is unable to provide an answer. This does not stop us from solving 2+2 or building a 100 story building that does not fall down. Our "laws" are not universal truths.
> 
> How did I do at an attempt to debate with a physicist?



Very carefully..........especially one who goes by "Bubba".
:happy2:




thericeguy said:


> It relates because no piece of the grenade would collide with another piece even projecting their paths out to infinity, unless something changed their paths. What is that something?
> 
> Seems we have a resident physicist to explain that. Who would have thunk it possible.
> 
> Edit: and he is named Bubba. I wonder if he has a four wheel drive


I'm betting "yes".
:happy2:

:idea:
If Einstein ever owned a truck, I wonder if it was 4wd?............




Bearfootfarm said:


> No, you really can't.
> You'll just rattle off some rhetoric and say, "See, that proves it"
> 
> Edited to add: I see you already did exactly what I predicted.





Bubba1358 said:


> I'm afraid I don't follow. Can you please specify which part(s) of my two proofs is false, wrong, or illogical? I'd be happy to explain in more detail.
> 
> Also, can you please prove me wrong and show how God does *not* exist?




They can't and they won't.
This goes back to the human nature of emotion overriding logic.
Even if you provide logic, science and reasoning for such a belief, which they claim to grasp, it will be rejected.
To acknowledge the existence of God, even by such methods, means they have to admit a loss of superiority to Him, conceding they are flawed and don't know and understand *everything*.
Some of us have come to that conclusion a long time ago, despite an IQ test.
Some still struggle with that recognition and acceptance.
Self examination can be quite painful.


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't prove the existence of any "supreme being".
> It just states that's *what people call* what they don't understand.
> You even used those words.
> 
> It's illogical to assume such a "being", with such "power", would have any interest in humans.
> 
> It's far more likely humans made it all up to explain the unknown, since "god" has had (and still has) many different meanings to everyone, and everyone thinks theirs is the only "true" one


Of course that's all it states - that something caused the BB, meaning it did not just happen on its own.

"God" is the name people have given to the source of the universe - that which caused the Big Bang to happen - the First Efficient Cause.

Whether or not this Being has interest in humans is a different debate entirely. That's theology - study and introspection into the nature of the First Cause. Is it benevolent? indifferent? malevolent? Theologians diverge....

Also: IF God exists, AND God created the universe, THEN God also created humans. IF God created humans, THEN logic concludes he does care. It's even more illogical to assume that after creating something, a creator would take absolutely no interest in his creation. That line of thinking seems to me like a furniture maker putting together a chair and then setting it aside, never to be used. Why create it at all if you plan to remain disinterested?

What strikes me about the "humans made it all up" argument is the astounding coherence of creationist stories with the scientific realm. For example, the Bible records the first action of God to be creating light. Science (only very recently) has concluded that the very first event in the physical universe was an incredibly blinding, powerful burst of light energy. The Biblical account also gets it right in the order of creation - separation of light from darkness as stars form and begin to orbit; water separated from the sky, as planetary objects begin to coalesce around stars; dry earth and water separated, as planets begin to take full form; and so on. These accounts are thousands of years old, and our scientific knowledge is still in its infancy. Well, maybe toddlerhood by now. 

I don't necessarily agree with the "everyone thinks theirs is the only "true" one" argument. The entire Judeo/Christian/Islamic world all believes in the same God. Many other religions, including that of the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and Egyptians, all claim a supreme god. Stating, "everyone thinks their religion is true" is more accurate.


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> It actually would help substantiate claims of both transgengerism and anorexia.





Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. I just wanted to see if they would admit it.





Bubba1358 said:


> Really though, how are these two so _substantially and fundamentally_ different to the point that one is a treated disease and the other a celebrated lifestyle?


I'll readily admit it - it does substantiate the fact that both are similar conditions.

I'm still wondering what this distinction is. Anyone wanna take a stab at it?


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> I'll readily admit it - it does substantiate the fact that both are similar conditions.
> 
> I'm still wondering what this distinction is. Anyone wanna take a stab at it?


I have found none of them care to debate anything. Why would they? They do not care what you think.. They do not care why you think it. They do not even care if what you think is true. Their fate rests in the hands of 9 people (currently 8). It is a legal strategy. 

Craft a narrow argument and force it to exist in a static vaccuum. Look. Its real. See?

They can gain nothing by debating you, me, or anyone. They are actually smart to evade it. Any time they have actually made a statement of fact, it has been shredded by overwhelming evidence. 

It seems acceptable to burn society to the ground, so long as men can say they are women while on fire.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> I have found none of them care to debate anything. Why would they? They do not care what you think.. They do not care why you think it. They do not even care if what you think is true. Their fate rests in the hands of 9 people (currently 8). It is a legal strategy.
> 
> Craft a narrow argument and force it to exist in a static vaccuum. Look. Its real. See?
> 
> They can gain nothing by debating you, me, or anyone. They are actually smart to evade it. Any time they have actually made a statement of fact, it has been shredded by overwhelming evidence.
> 
> It seems acceptable to burn society to the ground, so long as men can say they are women while on fire.



You spend a lot of time posting about how other posters don't meet your superior standards. How is that working out for you? What is the payoff?


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> I'll readily admit it - it does substantiate the fact that both are similar conditions.
> 
> I'm still wondering what this distinction is. Anyone wanna take a stab at it?


There is no celebrated lifestyle. All transgenders want to do is pee in peace. Is that really too much to ask? 

The argument at least in the beginning of this thread is that transgenderism is "all in their head" and couldn't be proven. It turns out that there is at least a basis in genetics. A proven genetic component (which I think will come soon) would remove the "all their head" theory completely. That just hasn't been acknowledged, and I think it's because many people just don't think of transgendered (perhaps all LGBT) as equals.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything as long as the posts are rational and not fallacious, but it is a choice to respond to any post.


----------



## farmrbrown

thericeguy said:


> I have found none of them care to debate anything. Why would they? They do not care what you think.. They do not care why you think it. They do not even care if what you think is true. Their fate rests in the hands of 9 people (currently 8). It is a legal strategy.
> 
> Craft a narrow argument and force it to exist in a static vaccuum. Look. Its real. See?
> 
> They can gain nothing by debating you, me, or anyone. They are actually smart to evade it. Any time they have actually made a statement of fact, it has been shredded by overwhelming evidence.
> 
> *It seems acceptable to burn society to the ground, so long as men can say they are women while on fire.*



I'd be willing to bet anyone named "Bubba" is a connoisseur of good BBQ, too......:happy2:

(Did I smell smoke?)


eep:


----------



## thericeguy

painterswife said:


> You spend a lot of time posting about how other posters don't meet your superior standards. How is that working out for you? What is the payoff?


I express my views, the same as you saying there are women who have a penis. Is that not the ultimate goal of a forum? It is working out splendidly. I type stuff. I click. The whole world gets to read what I typed. Pretty amazing.


----------



## dixiegal62

Before this silliness started a transgender woman could walk into a ladies room and "pee in peace" with the ability to pee in the bathroom with other women. Now the transgender woman will be peeing in the ladies room with other men. Which was what she didn't want to begin with. Somebody didn't think this through very well


----------



## Bubba1358

Irish Pixie said:


> *There is no celebrated lifestyle*. All transgenders want to do is pee in peace. Is that really too much to ask?
> 
> The argument at least in the beginning of this thread is that transgenderism is "all in their head" and couldn't be proven. *It turns out that there is at least a basis in genetics*. A proven genetic component (which I think will come soon) would remove the "all their head" theory completely. That just hasn't been acknowledged, and *I think it's because many people just don't think of transgendered (perhaps all LGBT) as equals*.
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything as long as the posts are rational and not fallacious, but it is a choice to respond to any post.


Mr./Ms. Jenner is going to be posing nude on a magazine cover. Sounds like a celebration to me.

There is a genetic basis for anorexia, too. Also psychopathy and schizophrenia. Having a genetic component doesn't make the symptoms suddenly A-OK.

What makes you think that transgendered aren't perceived as equals? I think that everyone is a human being worthy or honor, dignity, and respect. I also think that when someone is suffering from a break with reality, the all need an equal amount of love and care. Pretending issues don't exist in the name of equality seems misdirected.


So...once again...why are transgenders supposed to be accepted for who they think they are, but anorexics supposed to be given treatment based on who they think they are? What's the core difference?


----------



## farmrbrown

Bubba1358 said:


> Mr./Ms. Jenner is going to be posing nude on a magazine cover. Sounds like a celebration to me.


Ummmmmm..............:huh:

Can I just send a card?

eep:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bubba1358 said:


> Mr./Ms. Jenner is going to be posing nude on a magazine cover. Sounds like a celebration to me.
> 
> There is a genetic basis for anorexia, too. Also psychopathy and schizophrenia. Having a genetic component doesn't make the symptoms suddenly A-OK.
> 
> What makes you think that transgendered aren't perceived as equals? I think that everyone is a human being worthy or honor, dignity, and respect. I also think that when someone is suffering from a break with reality, the all need an equal amount of love and care. Pretending issues don't exist in the name of equality seems misdirected.
> 
> 
> So...once again...why are transgenders supposed to be accepted for who they think they are, but anorexics supposed to be given treatment based on who they think they are? What's the core difference?


C'mon. Caitlyn Jenner was an Olympic medal winning man and is now a transgender woman. She was celebrity before she ever transitioned. One person makes an entire group living a celebrity lifestyle?

I missing your point regarding genetics? A genetic link makes transgenderism real and provable, doesn't it? I'm curious, do you feel being black or a woman is a condition needing treatment as well? They are genetic after all. 

The fact that you think transgenders are suffering a break from reality is quite dismissive and condescending. Is it the same as believing an invisible person is controlling every aspect of your life? If not, can you explain?


----------



## Jim Bunton

Bubba1358 said:


> No worries.
> 
> I have studied it extensively, and have a degree in physics, FWIW.
> 
> At the time of the singularity, nothing physical existed outside of an infinitesimally small point that contained all matter and energy in the entire universe.
> 
> _Empty space did not exist yet. _(Try to wrap your brain around THAT one!) The laws of physics did not exist. Mater, electrons, quarks, etc. - these were all contained within the singularity.
> 
> The BB created not only all matter as we know it, but also all physical laws, time, and space itself.
> 
> If the fabric of empty space is actually nothing (it is), then how come nothing didn't even exist before the BB?
> 
> But space is NOT infinite. It is contained. We have no way of detecting or measuring this 'edge,' but we know it must exist because if it didn't, many of our laws would break down. We actually DO have evidence that it is expanding - which means the edge is being pushed farther out.
> 
> Eventually (maybe in another 13.8 billion years), a state will be reached in which acceleration slows down and gravity begins to pull it all back again. It will begin to shrink. However, it will never reach the point of the singularity again. The universe will be unable to retract itself back to a simultaneously infinitely large (mass) and small (space) point ever again. The universe has a finite beginning, and no anticipated _true_ end.
> 
> This^ is all what the science tells us.
> 
> This is remarkably consistent with Christian theories on the nature of individual human life - that it has a defined beginning, but no true defined end. It meshes quite nicely with the concept of a creator making the universe and setting it in motion. Since what we create reflects ourselves, it is reasonable to assume that creation reflects the nature of the creator - in this particular case, that nature is infinite (the universe as a created mechanism).
> 
> Did I just prove God exists two days in a row?


To answer your question. No you did not prove the existence of God.I am pretty sure that you haven't shown proof that either empty space did not exist because it wasn't empty, or no even empty space existed. What you have shown is a theory of hot the universe existed with more things unknown then known.

I did enjoy reading it. Gives one a lot to think about.

Jim


----------



## Jim Bunton

Irish Pixie said:


> C'mon. Caitlyn Jenner was an Olympic medal winning man and is now a transgender woman. She was celebrity before she ever transitioned. One person makes an entire group living a celebrity lifestyle?
> 
> I missing your point regarding genetics? A genetic link makes transgenderism real and provable, doesn't it? I'm curious, do you feel being black or a woman is a condition needing treatment as well? They are genetic after all.
> 
> The fact that you think transgenders are suffering a break from reality is quite dismissive and condescending. Is it the same as believing an invisible person is controlling every aspect of your life? If not, can you explain?


Should she be stripped of her medals for competing as a man when she was in fact a woman?

Jim


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jim Bunton said:


> Should she be stripped of her medals for competing as a man when she was in fact a woman?
> 
> Jim


I don't know. Do you?


----------



## Nevada

Jim Bunton said:


> Should she be stripped of her medals for competing as a man when she was in fact a woman?
> 
> Jim


To be accurate, Jenner claims to be transgender, not transsexual. She (or he) makes that distinction because her (or his) identity change is not sexual, since he's not attracted to men. Moreover he hasn't had surgery, so he still has a man's junk. That means he's biologically a man who feels more comfortable wearing women's clothes.

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but in Jenner's particular case women might have a valid complaint for his being in the women's room, since he's biologically a man and openly admits that he's sexually attracted to women.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> To be accurate, Jenner claims to be transgender, not transsexual. She (or he) makes that distinction because her (or his) identity change is not sexual, since he's not attracted to men. Moreover he hasn't had surgery, so he still has a man's junk. That means he's biologically a man who feels more comfortable wearing women's clothes.
> 
> I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but in Jenner's particular case women might have a valid complaint for his being in the women's room, since he's biologically a man and openly admits that he's sexually attracted to women.


Reasonable responses have no place here. You want that thread about kitty cats. /sarcasm


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> To be accurate, Jenner claims to be transgender, not transsexual. She (or he) makes that distinction because her (or his) identity change is not sexual, since he's not attracted to men. Moreover he hasn't had surgery, so he still has a man's junk. That means he's biologically a man who feels more comfortable wearing women's clothes.
> 
> I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but in Jenner's particular case women might have a valid complaint for his being in the women's room, since he's biologically a man and openly admits that he's sexually attracted to women.


I don't see why anyone would flame you for your opinion, you didn't denigrate anyone. 

However, I did read this (from March 2016): "Caitlyn confesses she can't imagine herself being in a lesbian relationship at all. "To be honest with you, I can't see myself dating women in the future," she says. "I've been there done that. I've got three very strong ex-wives. I just don't see it."

Instead, Cait admits she would be open to a romance with a man and the idea of being taken care of. "If I was in a relationship with a guy, I would enjoy being treated like thatâopening doors for you, doing all what you think is the traditional stuff in a guy and a girl relationship," she says. "They have to be a very special guy to be able to do that."

From: http://www.eonline.com/shows/i_am_c...d-more-recap-the-season-premiere-of-i-am-cait


----------



## thericeguy

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't see why anyone would flame you for your opinion, you didn't denigrate anyone.
> 
> However, I did read this (from March 2016): "Caitlyn confesses she can't imagine herself being in a lesbian relationship at all. "To be honest with you, I can't see myself dating women in the future," she says. "I've been there done that. I've got three very strong ex-wives. I just don't see it."
> 
> Instead, Cait admits she would be open to a romance with a man and the idea of being taken care of. "If I was in a relationship with a guy, I would enjoy being treated like thatâopening doors for you, doing all what you think is the traditional stuff in a guy and a girl relationship," she says. "They have to be a very special guy to be able to do that."
> 
> From: http://www.eonline.com/shows/i_am_c...d-more-recap-the-season-premiere-of-i-am-cait


Hmmm. Seems Cait accepts that it might be very difficult to look at his naked body and see "now that deserves to be treated like a lady".


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> However, I did read this (from March 2016): "Caitlyn confesses she can't imagine herself being in a lesbian relationship at all. "To be honest with you, I can't see myself dating women in the future," she says. "I've been there done that. I've got three very strong ex-wives. I just don't see it."


Seems he's confused about himself.

_While she has undergone some cosmetic surgery, she has neither undergone sex reassignment surgery nor ruled it out; she stated that, for her, life as a woman is primarily a matter of mental state and lifestyle. *She said she has never been sexually attracted to men, but has instead always been sexually attracted to women*, and that, keeping in mind the difficulty people have understanding the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity, she will identify as asexual for now._
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caitlyn_Jenner

But it wouldn't really be a lesbian relationship anyway, because he still has his junk. If he has sex with a woman we couldn't hardly call that a lesbian encounter.


----------



## MO_cows

We'd all be better off if Jenner hadn't had that car accident and therefore been "outted" on making the gender transition. The media and anyone who got their hands on a microphone has made her out to be such a "hero", which is probably making Chaz Bono pound his head on a wall somewhere because he was the "famous person transgender trailblazer" years ago.


----------



## Nevada

MO_cows said:


> We'd all be better off if Jenner hadn't had that car accident and therefore been "outted" on making the gender transition. The media and anyone who got their hands on a microphone has made her out to be such a "hero", which is probably making Chaz Bono pound his head on a wall somewhere because he was the "famous person transgender trailblazer" years ago.


She made a bold move, and I have no desire to belittle that fact or take any fame away from her.


----------



## Jokarva

Bubba1358 said:


> So...once again...why are transgenders supposed to be accepted for who they think they are, but anorexics supposed to be given treatment based on who they think they are? What's the core difference?


Based on my years as a nurse, and my experience with both, I'll take a shot.

Anorexia is mental illness accompanied by physical manifestation. Fear of being fat and are fat = not anorexic. Fear being fat and are emaciated = anorexic. It's not that simple obviously, but without the visible symptom of emaciation I never saw anyone admitted for medical treatment. Doesn't mean they didn't get private therapy of course.

The similarity of anorexia and gender is obviously that both weight and gender exist on a spectrum. Those who think there are only XX and XY persons are missing those with a single X (Turner syndrome), an XXY (klinefelters), an XYY, and however many others I'm unfamiliar with. Those can come with physical manifestations also, but nothing as obvious as being severely underweight. 

Medicine can measure if you are truly anorexic and in need of treatment, but measuring someone's place on the gender scale isn't an exact science. And that's my $.02 worth.


----------



## mreynolds

Here's what I don't get. I have even asked two lesbians this to no avail. 

Why do some lesbians dress and act like men. What is the attraction to their mate if they (their mate) are attracted to women but their mates look like men? Maybe someone here can answer this for me as I only have a few gay lesbian friends and I have asked all them.


----------



## painterswife

mreynolds said:


> Here's what I don't get. I have even asked two lesbians this to no avail.
> 
> Why do some lesbians dress and act like men. What is the attraction to their mate if they (their mate) are attracted to women but their mates look like men? Maybe someone here can answer this for me as I only have a few gay lesbian friends and I have asked all them.


Are you attracted to a feminine or more masculine member of the opposite sex? It is just like that. Different people are attracted to different types.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Irish Pixie said:


> There is no celebrated lifestyle. All transgenders want to do is pee in peace. Is that really too much to ask?
> 
> The argument at least in the beginning of this thread is that transgenderism is "all in their head" and couldn't be proven. It turns out that there is at least a basis in genetics. A proven genetic component (which I think will come soon) would remove the "all their head" theory completely. That just hasn't been acknowledged, and I think it's because many people just don't think of transgendered (perhaps all LGBT) as equals.
> 
> I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything as long as the posts are rational and not fallacious, but it is a choice to respond to any post.


If all they wanted to do was pee in peace why not pee in the room that matches their physical gender identity? All I want to do is pee in peace with out members of the opposite sex walking behind me while I do it. 

Jim


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> To be accurate, Jenner claims to be transgender, not transsexual. She (or he) makes that distinction because her (or his) identity change is not sexual, since he's not attracted to men. Moreover he hasn't had surgery, so he still has a man's junk. That means he's biologically a man who feels more comfortable wearing women's clothes.
> 
> I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but in Jenner's particular case women might have a valid complaint for his being in the women's room, since he's biologically a man and openly admits that he's sexually attracted to women.





Irish Pixie said:


> I don't see why anyone would flame you for your opinion, you didn't denigrate anyone.
> 
> However, I did read this (from March 2016): "Caitlyn confesses she can't imagine herself being in a lesbian relationship at all. "To be honest with you, I can't see myself dating women in the future," she says. "I've been there done that. I've got three very strong ex-wives. I just don't see it."
> 
> Instead, Cait admits she would be open to a romance with a man and the idea of being taken care of. "If I was in a relationship with a guy, I would enjoy being treated like that&#8212;opening doors for you, doing all what you think is the traditional stuff in a guy and a girl relationship," she says. "They have to be a very special guy to be able to do that."
> 
> From: http://www.eonline.com/shows/i_am_c...d-more-recap-the-season-premiere-of-i-am-cait





Nevada said:


> Seems he's confused about himself.


Yes, it is rather confusing for many of us.
I think asking for tolerance on this issue should be a two way street.
If the people actually going thru this have uncertainties and indecision, it's a a sure bet that people who never encountered anything like it before are going to struggle with what to do also.


At the end of Pixie's link was an interesting exchange between Jenner and friends.......

*"7. Political Debate: Caitlyn and Jenny get into a heated discussion over LGBT rights and politics after an ordinance in Houston is repealed, effectively banning transgender women from using ladies' public restrooms. Jenny asks Cait how she feels about the situation since conservatives were the ones influential in the reversal, but Cait refuses to place the blame on her political party&#8212;or listen to the opposing side.

"Republicans and the conservatives are not these horrible people out there trying to oppress people," she argues. "I don't feel like they're out to get us. Every conservative guy out there believes in everybody's rights.


"All of the ladies look uncomfortable and bewildered after hearing Cait's stance on the issue. "It is frustrating to me that Cait doesn't see the obvious," Candis says. "I don't know how to show her without demeaning her or making her feel less than because her party that she represents doesn't believe in who we are as trans people."

Caitlyn continues by asserting that transgender rights are just not a "big issue" to Republicans because they're more concerned with the economy. "They're just worried about much bigger issues than the trans' issues," she explains. "We're $18.5 trillion in debt. I think what they don't realize is this country could collapse over this at some point and if our country collapses it doesn't make any difference if you're gay, trans, whatever."

Jenny is bothered by Cait's unwillingness to at least be open to their points of view. "The stakes are very high," she says. "If she doesn't listen to the rest of the community, I think she's going to find herself isolated and irrelevant."*




Funny how the concern over a person's rights to have feelings and make choices seems to end if that person doesn't go along completely with the group's point of view.
:hrm:


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jim Bunton said:


> If all they wanted to do was pee in peace why not pee in the room that matches their physical gender identity? All I want to do is pee in peace with out members of the opposite sex walking behind me while I do it.
> 
> Jim


Google transgender woman and click on images. Can you understand why many of those women don't want to use the men's restroom? 

Now Google transgender man and click on the images. Can you understand why many of these men don't want to use the women's restroom?


----------



## Jim Bunton

Irish Pixie said:


> Google transgender woman and click on images. Can you understand why many of those women don't want to use the men's restroom?
> 
> Now Google transgender man and click on the images. Can you understand why many of these men don't want to use the women's restroom?


I do understand it. Most of those if they have not completed the transformation are certainly far enough along that they could use the restroom without any one knowing. 
I do not know how to put this so as not to be offensive. So here goes I am talking about cases like the one in the IL school where a transgender girl who still has her male parts has insisted on being able to use the female locker room and showers. These are the cases that cause the backlash.

Believe it or not I am pretty open minded on most lifestyle issues this one I struggle with. Not because I feel transgenders are some how worse, or less human then anyone else. I am way past the age of being forced to share a locker room with anyone let alone an anatomical member of the other sex. I am not too old to know the embarrassment it would have caused me when I was an adolescent or going through puberty. School is rough enough without adding unisex bathrooms and showers. Over time we could add fully enclosed stalls to all public restrooms, and quit having children shower in school.

Jim


----------



## farmrbrown

Jim Bunton said:


> Should she be stripped of her medals for competing as a man when she was in fact a woman?
> 
> Jim


Nope.
The IOC is trying to keep up with the changing times. This article and related links mention specific, recent cases.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...tes-can-take-part-in-olympics-without-surgery

According to some on here, they still have it all wrong.
In Olympic rules, gender and sex are still equally the same thing.
They also discriminate between which way the transition of gender/sex the person wants to be, in how they are allowed to compete.
In Jenner's case, it's OK. Even though he's not a current olympic athlete, I guess there's always the Senior Olympics. :nanner:

But a former male that wants to compete against females has to take testosterone reducing drugs and have tests verified for two years prior to being allowed to compete against other women.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> As a weak minded human, I am thankful I will not have to spend eternity listening to you. Jesus is merciful indeed.


You don't have to listen to me now.
If you do, it's by your own choosing


----------



## Txsteader

Irish Pixie said:


> There is no celebrated lifestyle. All transgenders want to do is pee in peace. Is that really too much to ask?


They weren't peeing in peace before? Who was harassing them or preventing them from peeing in peace?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> They can't and they won't.
> This goes back to the human nature of *emotion overriding logic*.
> Even if you provide logic, science and reasoning for such a belief, which they claim to grasp, it will be rejected.
> To acknowledge the existence of God, even by such methods, means they have to admit a loss of superiority to Him, conceding *they are flawed* and don't know and understand everything.
> Some of us have come to that conclusion a long time ago, despite an IQ test.
> Some still struggle with that recognition and acceptance.
> Self examination can be quite painful.


Emotion overriding logic is the basis of all religions.

Saying anyone who doesn't believe is "flawed" is just another example of the superiority complex that is a symptom of the condition



> Even if you provide logic, science and reasoning for such a belief


And by that you mean more rhetoric, since there is no empirical evidence


----------



## mreynolds

painterswife said:


> Are you attracted to a feminine or more masculine member of the opposite sex? It is just like that. Different people are attracted to different types.


I really don't know any masculine members of my opposite sex unless they are the few lesbians I know. Sure, not all females I know are all pink and bows but not masculine by any means. Like I said, I even discussed the issue with my friends and even they don't have an answer. They honestly didn't. They would tell me anything.


----------



## Txsteader

MO_cows said:


> We'd all be better off if Jenner hadn't had that car accident and therefore been "outted" on making the gender transition. The media and anyone who got their hands on a microphone has made her out to be such a "hero", which is probably making Chaz Bono pound his head on a wall somewhere because he was the "famous person transgender trailblazer" years ago.


Jenner's not the 'hero' s/he once was among progressives.

S/he's a Republican. And apparently they hold that against him/her.



ETA: And I now see that FarmerBrown already made that point. :thumb:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Of course that's all it states - that something caused the BB, meaning it did not just happen on its own.
> 
> "God" is the name people have given to the source of the universe - that which caused the Big Bang to happen - the First Efficient Cause.
> 
> Whether or not *this Being *has interest in humans is a different debate entirely. That's theology - study and introspection into the nature of the First Cause. Is it benevolent? indifferent? malevolent? Theologians diverge....
> 
> Also: IF God exists, AND God created the universe, THEN God also created humans. IF God created humans, THEN logic concludes he does care. It's even more illogical to assume that after creating something, a creator would take absolutely no interest in his creation. That line of thinking seems to me like a furniture maker putting together a chair and then setting it aside, never to be used. Why create it at all if you plan to remain disinterested?
> 
> What strikes me about the "humans made it all up" argument is the astounding coherence of creationist stories with the scientific realm. For example, the Bible records the first action of God to be creating light. Science (only very recently) has concluded that the very first event in the physical universe was an incredibly blinding, powerful burst of light energy. The Biblical account also gets it right in the order of creation - separation of light from darkness as stars form and begin to orbit; water separated from the sky, as planetary objects begin to coalesce around stars; dry earth and water separated, as planets begin to take full form; and so on. These accounts are thousands of years old, and our scientific knowledge is still in its infancy. Well, maybe toddlerhood by now.
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with the "everyone thinks theirs is the only "true" one" argument. The entire Judeo/Christian/Islamic world all believes in the same God. Many other religions, including that of the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, and Egyptians, all claim a supreme god. Stating, "everyone thinks their religion is true" is more accurate.


There's no *evidence* of any "being(s)"

You're talking about a theory that is pure speculation, and claiming science somehow "supports" that belief when that is also based only on faith and a biased interpretation of facts


----------



## mreynolds

Emotion overriding logic is not just confined to theology. It is rampant in todays world.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Craft a narrow argument and force it to exist in a static vaccuum.
> 
> * Look. Its real. See?*


That's how everyone "proves" the existence of "god"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dixiegal62 said:


> Before this silliness started a transgender woman could walk into a ladies room and "pee in peace" with the ability to pee in the bathroom with other women. Now the transgender woman will be peeing in the ladies room with other men. Which was what she didn't want to begin with. *Somebody didn't think this through very well*


There's a huge number who aren't thinking it through since you admit it's been going on forever anyway


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Mr./Ms. Jenner is going to be posing nude on a magazine cover. Sounds like a celebration to me.
> 
> There is a genetic basis for anorexia, too. Also psychopathy and schizophrenia. Having a genetic component doesn't make the symptoms suddenly A-OK.
> 
> What makes you think that transgendered aren't perceived as equals? I think that everyone is a human being worthy or honor, dignity, and respect. I also think that *when someone is suffering from a break with reality*, the all need an equal amount of love and care. Pretending issues don't exist in the name of equality seems misdirected.
> 
> 
> So...once again...why are transgenders supposed to be accepted for who they think they are, but anorexics supposed to be given treatment based on who they think they are? What's the core difference?


How is it a "break with reality" when they "*believe*" and "have faith" in who and what they are inside?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Funny how the concern over a person's rights to have feelings and make choices seems to end if that person doesn't go along completely with the group's point of view.


That's nothing new.

I know of entire websites that show those symptoms while proclaiming their beliefs in rights and freedoms (and some members repeatedly state they won't come here again, but that was a lie too)

I'm certain you've seen that too


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> mreynolds:
> Emotion overriding logic is not just confined to theology. It is rampant in todays world.


Correct. 
My listing of one example doesn't mean it's the only one


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> I have no means to debate such a topic with you. I am not a physicist. But with my simple skills, I found one point that did not jive with my logic. I am not trying to misquote you. Just dont feel like backspacing 90%.
> 
> You said there must be an edge because all our physics laws break down if not.
> 
> I would point out the answer to 5/0 is "undefined" because our math system is unable to provide an answer. This does not stop us from solving 2+2 or building a 100 story building that does not fall down. Our "laws" are not universal truths.
> 
> How did I do at an attempt to debate with a physicist?


The big problem science has with trying to explain the origins of the universe and of life is the fact to do so requires them to violate many of their own 'laws'. One of the very basic laws in science is energy can not be created nor destroyed. To support the big bang theory you must say this law is not true because you are saying energy was created we just don't know how.

There are dozens of examples of flaws with the theory of macroevolution. I've had discussions with a PHd in a science field who is also a pastor who can spend hours giving you scientific facts and data showing the flaws. He can spend several hours on nothing but the problems with evolution and cells.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> They can't and they won't.
> This goes back to the human nature of emotion overriding logic.
> Even if you provide logic, science and reasoning for such a belief, which they claim to grasp, it will be rejected.
> To acknowledge the existence of God, even by such methods, means they have to admit a loss of superiority to Him, conceding they are flawed and don't know and understand *everything*.
> Some of us have come to that conclusion a long time ago, despite an IQ test.
> Some still struggle with that recognition and acceptance.
> Self examination can be quite painful.





Bearfootfarm said:


> Emotion overriding logic is the basis of all religions.
> 
> Saying anyone who doesn't believe is "flawed" is just another example of the superiority complex that is a symptom of the condition
> 
> 
> And by that you mean more rhetoric, since there is no empirical evidence



I see you still like to attribute statements to people who never said such things or implied it. :bored:



> Emotion overriding logic


.........is what I said about science and logic being used in proving the existence of God to people who supposedly respect science and logic.

While it's obvious to point out that trait in religious beliefs, the very same thing occurs when the subject of religion and God turns from pure emotion to pure science.
Do you really believe that the dismissal of an unemotional and scientific argument by one who does NOT believe in a Creator, isn't about emotion overriding logic at that point?




> Saying anyone who doesn't believe is "flawed" is just another example of the superiority complex that is a symptom of the condition



If you interpreted the statement I made (below) that way, you have made a mistake.
It's ok.
You, I and everyone else makes mistakes, we're only human.
That was what I said.
Being "flawed" is irrelevant to whether you believe in God or not, and I didn't say or even imply that. It's just a fact that we ALL are, and an important one to recognize IMO, before even attempting to have that discussion.
It's the opposite of having a superiority complex, if you believe in God, you already KNOW who is superior.........and it ain't us humans.
:happy2:



> To acknowledge the existence of God, even by such methods, means they have to admit a loss of superiority to Him, conceding they are flawed and don't know and understand *everything*.
> Some of us have come to that conclusion a long time ago, despite an IQ test.
> Some still struggle with that recognition and acceptance.
> Self examination can be quite painful.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> There's no *evidence* of any "being(s)"
> 
> You're talking about a theory that is pure speculation, and claiming science somehow "supports" that belief when that is also based only on faith and a biased interpretation of facts





Bearfootfarm said:


> How is it a "break with reality" when they "*believe*" and "have faith" in who and what they are inside?


Good question.


----------



## watcher

Bubba1358 said:


> Inability to divide by 0 is a methematical law.
> 
> We are so far IN the universe that we cannot detect the edge of it. Yet, we know that objects are expanding based on tracking the movement of galaxies and whatnot.
> 
> But think of it this way. In an explosion, the waves and particles radiate out in a spherical way. The universe, then, must also be spherical in shape, if the BB is true. A sphere has an end.


There's is a problem. We do NOT know that the universe is expanding. We think it is based on what we and on theories we made up to fit what we see. 

Its like back in the old days when people observed fire and came up with the theory it was an element.


----------



## thericeguy

It is a break from reality in this way. Transgender or straight, if you look at your naked body in a mirror, you will see hard physical evidence of your sex. There are distinctive physical characteristics to indicate if you are male or females. Those signs increase at the onset of pubery. A person who can look at a male body in the mirror and deny that, claiming they are female, is experiencing a break from reality. They deny the very facts before them.

When a person makes a choice to believe in God, it is a choice. As you have said, there is no proof of His existence. There are no facts to look in the mirror and deny. If you could prove there was no God and I still believed, I too would be experiencing a break from reality. But you can not prove that. So it remains a choice, not a break.


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't know. Do you?


Will now doesn't this open a brand new can of worms. Is it violating the civil rights of a man who feels he's a women if you forbid him from competing as a woman in a sporting event? IOW, if Tiger Woods announced he was now Ms Tigeria Woods and is planning on playing in the LPGA next year wouldn't it be illegal to prevent him?


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> There's is a problem. We do NOT know that the universe is expanding. We think it is based on what we and on theories we made up to fit what we see.
> 
> Its like back in the old days when people observed fire and came up with the theory it was an element.


As I said earlier today, humans are not fully able to grasp "nothing" or "infinity". It lies outside the human experience. God is the beginning (nothing) and the end (infinity). 

When our scientists look at all the data and formulate theories to explain them, they start with a bias; inability to fully understand nothing. With that bias, they try to understand how it went from nothing to something. I do not think anyone anywhere is capable of understanding it perfectly via science alone.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> It is a break from reality in this way. Transgender or straight, if you look at your naked body in a mirror, you will see hard physical evidence *of your sex*. There are distinctive physical characteristics to indicate if you are male or females. Those signs increase at the onset of pubery. A person who can look at a male body in the mirror and deny that, claiming they are female, is experiencing a break from reality. They deny the very facts before them.
> 
> When a person makes a choice to believe in God, it is a choice. As you have said, there is no proof of His existence. There are no facts to look in the mirror and deny. If you could prove there was no God and I still believed, I too would be experiencing a break from reality. But you can not prove that. So it remains a choice, not a break.


You still think it's about "sex" when it's all about "gender"
Biology isn't the only thing which determines "gender".
This was covered in the first few posts

It's a break from reality in *both* examples, or it's real in both examples.

"Insanity" is describing the same conditions and saying the end results will be different


----------



## Bearfootfarm

watcher said:


> Will now doesn't this open a brand new can of worms. Is it violating the civil rights of a man who feels he's a women if you forbid him from competing as a woman in a sporting event? IOW, if Tiger Woods announced he was now Ms Tigeria Woods and is planning on playing in the LPGA next year wouldn't it be illegal to prevent him?


They'd just give him a DD handicap and shorten his putter


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> You still think it's about "sex" when it's all about "gender"
> Biology isn't the only thing which determines "gender".
> This was covered in the first few posts
> 
> It's a break from reality in *both* examples, or it's real in both examples.
> 
> "Insanity" is describing the same conditions and saying the end results will be different


If its all about gender, why are all our laws written about sex? Cant discriminate based on sex. If we are not talking about laws, what ARE we talking about?

And I clearly showed you the difference between the two scenarios. Your inability to accept those words as written are not my problem. 

You play the game well. Get just a little closer to calling me crazy please. I would love to report you again.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Jim Bunton said:


> I do understand it. Most of those if they have not completed the transformation are certainly far enough along that they could use the restroom without any one knowing.
> I do not know how to put this so as not to be offensive. So here goes I am talking about cases like the one in the IL school where a transgender girl who still has her male parts has insisted on being able to use the female locker room and showers. These are the cases that cause the backlash.
> 
> Believe it or not I am pretty open minded on most lifestyle issues this one I struggle with. Not because I feel transgenders are some how worse, or less human then anyone else. I am way past the age of being forced to share a locker room with anyone let alone an anatomical member of the other sex. I am not too old to know the embarrassment it would have caused me when I was an adolescent or going through puberty. School is rough enough without adding unisex bathrooms and showers. Over time we could add fully enclosed stalls to all public restrooms, and quit having children shower in school.
> 
> Jim


I appreciate your open mindedness and the fact that you were (and are) considerate. 

Are you talking about the case from last fall? Chicago suburb when the fed government ordered that a transgender girl could use the girl's locker room? 

"The district says transgender students may use their gender-identified locker room if they change and shower privately. The government said a separate changing place was discriminatory because it subjected the student to stigma and different treatment."

From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-high-school-locker-room_us_56387949e4b00a4d2e0bb825

This isn't directed at you, Jim Bunton. Apparently there are many many people that only read, or comprehend, the bits of information that appeal to them. The federal government specifically said that transgenders can use their gender identified locker room. 

I'm still worried about violence against the transgendered.


----------



## thericeguy

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/0...e-over-transgender-access-to-locker-room.html

Huffington Post writes articles which call people morons, idiots, losers, and I think doesnt shy away from cuss words including F bombs. Yeah, journalistic integrity. 

My link says nothing about after other students.


----------



## oneraddad

thericeguy said:


> If its all about gender, why are all our laws written about sex? Cant discriminate based on sex. If we are not talking about laws, what ARE we talking about?
> 
> And I clearly showed you the difference between the two scenarios. Your inability to accept those words as written are not my problem.
> 
> You play the game well. Get just a little closer to calling me crazy please. I would love to report you again.



Report = tattle tale


----------



## Heritagefarm

I try to be as open-minded as possible. Homeopathy, flat earth, really anything is possible. The facts and data will say one thing, but something may actually be different. I encourage Christians to be better Christians, and spiritual people to be more at peace, and so on.



thericeguy said:


> Bubba, your going to melt my face.
> 
> Do you know where I find God? In a tomato seed. He speaks to me there. People say things like "I can grow tomatoes". Really? What did you do to cause that tiny spec of seemingly a dead thing to turn into a tomato plant? That hull splits open and out comes a thing which develops roots and leaves, knowing which way up is. Noone grows tomatoes. We plant tomato seeds.
> 
> The plan that involves creation mskes that seed turn into a tomato. It fulfills Gods promise of true to it's kind.


Gonna melt my heart! No, actually, despite the fact I don't believe in organized religion at all, and no religion in particular, when I visit the wilderness, or see pastoral fields, I can sense something. It's an enery of sorts. Maybe it's God, maybe it's the Holy Spirit, maybe it's the sprit-energy of all the plants and animals. 



Bubba1358 said:


> Inability to divide by 0 is a methematical law.
> 
> We are so far IN the universe that we cannot detect the edge of it. Yet, we know that objects are expanding based on tracking the movement of galaxies and whatnot.
> 
> But think of it this way. In an explosion, the waves and particles radiate out in a spherical way. The universe, then, must also be spherical in shape, if the BB is true. A sphere has an end.


I'm not very familiar with the expanding-shrapnel example. Wouldn't some of the pieces crash into each other ever as the bomb exploded, based simply on the chaotic nature of the explosion?

Further, at face value, the BB directly contradicts the Genesis story of creation in 6 days. If it was only 6 days, it means ~14B years passed in 6 days for God. Further, if He used evolution as his means of creation, it means death existed before the Fall, which contradicts the Bible no matter how we parse it.



thericeguy said:


> It is an unprovable truth. You and I must accept. Truth can only be seen after exercising faith. That is why we call it faith.


I think some people find it easier to believe in science. Yet before our amazing science, what was there? Religion, of course. It's society's way of striving towards something better, greater than themselves and improving the world. And useful for explaining the world around them when they couldn't explain it. 

Unfortunately, what scientific statements the Bible DOES make are generally too poetic to be taken at face value, or simply inaccurate. We also have to examine other religions that have similar creation stories that line up with 



Bearfootfarm said:


> They don't prove the existence of any "supreme being".
> It just states that's *what people call* what they don't understand.
> You even used those words.
> 
> It's illogical to assume such a "being", with such "power", would have any interest in humans.
> 
> It's far more likely humans made it all up to explain the unknown, since "god" has had (and still has) many different meanings to everyone, and everyone thinks theirs is the only "true" one


You're welcome to join the discussion by actually thinking about it. Try not to blow any neurons out in the process.



Bubba1358 said:


> I have an idea how hard it is by the 'gears turning' expression my kids give me. :huh:


The juxtaposition is quite amusing.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritage, I just finished reading a well written article. You may have seen my references to a personal desire for another party, or statements about no political choice due to both sides being the same, only supporting status quo and self power. It sums it up nicely. 

This two threads on transgender and the food stamp thread roll nicely into the content of the article. 

http://swarajyamag.com/world/how-americas-aristocratic-new-class-fuelled-trumps-rise


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> If its all about gender, why are all our laws written about sex? Cant discriminate based on sex. If we are not talking about laws, what ARE we talking about?
> 
> And I clearly showed you the difference between the two scenarios. Your inability to accept those words as written are not my problem.
> 
> You play the game well. Get just a little closer to calling me crazy please. I would love to report you again.


Report anything you like, if it makes you feel good.



> And I clearly showed you the difference between the two scenarios


No, you stated why you* want* them to be different, but really they aren't.
They both exist only in the mind


----------



## watcher

Irish Pixie said:


> I appreciate your open mindedness and the fact that you were (and are) considerate.
> 
> Are you talking about the case from last fall? Chicago suburb when the fed government ordered that a transgender girl could use the girl's locker room?
> 
> "The district says transgender students may use their gender-identified locker room if they change and shower privately. The government said a separate changing place was discriminatory because it subjected the student to stigma and different treatment."
> 
> From: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transgender-high-school-locker-room_us_56387949e4b00a4d2e0bb825
> 
> This isn't directed at you, Jim Bunton. Apparently there are many many people that only read, or comprehend, the bits of information that appeal to them. The federal government specifically said that transgenders can use their gender identified locker room but they must change and shower privately.
> 
> I'm still worried about violence against the transgendered.


I'm worried about violence against them, straights, gays, blacks, whites and puppies. But you know what? There is, was and always will be violent people out there.

Once you start making the majority feel they can or worse yet *have *to treat a minority different you are setting up a system which will feed violence not reduce it. Most people don't realize this goes both ways. When the government set rules which make one group seem lesser, people see it as permission to be violent toward them. But the when people see a group being treated 'better' than they are that breeds resentment which breeds violence. Note that neither of these have to be factual only that the people 'feel' it is so.


----------



## Jim Bunton

Irish Pixie said:


> I appreciate your open mindedness and the fact that you were (and are) considerate.
> 
> Are you talking about the case from last fall? Chicago suburb when the fed government ordered that a transgender girl could use the girl's locker room?
> 
> .


I am talking about that case. 

Here is what I am talking about


> Federal education authorities, staking out their firmest position yet on an increasingly contentious issue, found Monday that an Illinois school district violated anti-discrimination laws when it did not allow a transgender student who identifies as a girl and participates on a girls&#8217; sports team to change and shower in the girls&#8217; locker room without restrictions.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/u...transgender-students-rights-us-says.html?_r=0

If this has changed I would like to hear about it. I am reading some conflicting statements about where it stands. I know this is kind of old, but I haven't found anything to make me believe this isn't still the governments stand. The worst part about this case to me is the school boards seems to be trying hard to take everyone's rights under consideration, and is still embroiled in a federal case.



Jim


----------



## Txsteader

From Jim Bunton's link:


> In a letter sent Monday, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education told the Palatine district that requiring a transgender student to use private changing and showering facilities was a violation of that student&#8217;s rights under Title IX, a federal law that bans sex discrimination. The student, who identifies as female but was born male, should be given unfettered access to girls&#8217; facilities, the letter said.


That paragraph clearly explains why there is opposition to this issue.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> From Jim Bunton's link:
> 
> 
> That paragraph clearly explains why there is opposition to this issue.


If it has male junk and wanders into the girls' shower room, throw it back out.


----------



## thericeguy

If only all the Sanders people and all the Trump (conservatives call him a liberal) would get together, we could have one party for Lgbt, illegal immigrants, and convicts, one party for billionaires and mega corporations, and one party for typical American families.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> If it has male junk and wanders into the girls' shower room, throw it back out.


Under federal statute, you would be criminally and civily liable for your actions. A definitive supreme court ruling is sorely needed, then these threads can enjoy the agonizing death which they deserve. 

With the number of federal, state, and private suits being filed, it should have a decision soon. Injunctions are just around the corner and emergency redress petitions will be filed.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Under federal statute, you would be criminally and civily liable for your actions. A definitive supreme court ruling is sorely needed, then these threads can enjoy the agonizing death which they deserve.
> 
> With the number of federal, state, and private suits being filed, it should have a decision soon. Injunctions are just around the corner and *emergency redress* petitions will be filed.


Was that an intentional pun?:hobbyhors


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Care to discuss what science refers to as "mitochondrial eve"?


Mitochondria handle animal cellular respiration. They are the animal equivalent of chlorophyll.

The very existence of mitochondria is problematic for religious adherents. I haven't looked into the Mitochondrial Eve (there appears to be a theoretical Adam as well). These people would be the people everyone else is descended from, which honestly seems unlikely. Obviously, though, this breed of human was superior and outlasted the other human subspecies.

The reason mitochondria aren't a good example is because they have their own DNA. They reproduce on their own. They have their own cell wall. Their functions are tied inextricably with nearly every function of the human body, but their function could be relegated to another system if needed. (It would probably not be as efficient.) In most ways mt act like prokaryotic bacteria embedded in the cellular functions. 

This contributes to a theory that the mitochndria actually formed a symbiotic relationship with early humans many years prior.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Mitochondria handle animal cellular respiration. They are the animal equivalent of chlorophyll.
> 
> The very existence of mitochondria is problematic for religious adherents. I haven't looked into the Mitochondrial Eve (there appears to be a theoretical Adam as well). These people would be the people everyone else is descended from, which honestly seems unlikely. Obviously, though, this breed of human was superior and outlasted the other human subspecies.
> 
> The reason mitochondria aren't a good example is because they have their own DNA. They reproduce on their own. They have their own cell wall. Their functions are tied inextricably with nearly every function of the human body, but their function could be relegated to another system if needed. (It would probably not be as efficient.) In most ways mt act like prokaryotic bacteria embedded in the cellular functions.
> 
> This contributes to a theory that the mitochndria actually formed a symbiotic relationship with early humans many years prior.




Since we've gone intellectual in conversation, rather than barbaric, I'd like to offer a slight correction.



> They are the animal equivalent of chlorophyll.


Chloroplasts might be a better analogy than chlorophyll, which is the chemical agent of a plant's "respiration".
Interestingly, it looks almost identical to hemoglobin, except for the center, metallic ion - Magnesium instead of Iron.

https://www.google.com/search?q=chl...=4rUuV42tCILMmwGckLzICQ#imgrc=GZu1s3WhB2rf4M:


----------



## InvalidID

Heritagefarm said:


> Mitochondria handle animal cellular respiration. They are the animal equivalent of chlorophyll.
> 
> The very existence of mitochondria is problematic for religious adherents. I haven't looked into the Mitochondrial Eve (there appears to be a theoretical Adam as well). These people would be the people everyone else is descended from, which honestly seems unlikely. Obviously, though, this breed of human was superior and outlasted the other human subspecies.
> 
> The reason mitochondria aren't a good example is because they have their own DNA. They reproduce on their own. They have their own cell wall. Their functions are tied inextricably with nearly every function of the human body, but their function could be relegated to another system if needed. (It would probably not be as efficient.) In most ways mt act like prokaryotic bacteria embedded in the cellular functions.
> 
> This contributes to a theory that the mitochndria actually formed a symbiotic relationship with early humans many years prior.





farmrbrown said:


> Since we've gone intellectual in conversation, rather than barbaric, I'd like to offer a slight correction.
> 
> 
> 
> Chloroplasts might be a better analogy than chlorophyll, which is the chemical agent of a plant's "respiration".
> Interestingly, it looks almost identical to hemoglobin, except for the center, metallic ion - Magnesium instead of Iron.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=chl...=4rUuV42tCILMmwGckLzICQ#imgrc=GZu1s3WhB2rf4M:



I hope you're both very happy that you've killed this thread for 90% of the public. Jerks. :nanner:


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Heritagefarm View Post
> Mitochondria handle animal cellular respiration. They are the animal equivalent of chlorophyll.
> 
> The very existence of mitochondria is problematic for religious adherents. I haven't looked into the Mitochondrial Eve (there appears to be a theoretical Adam as well). These people would be the people everyone else is descended from, which honestly seems unlikely.
> 
> Obviously, though, this breed of human was *superior and outlasted *the other human subspecies.


Or it was a simple matter of luck that she survived the last near extinction of the species

Another possibility is there were simply more **** Sapiens, so they "won by default" by outnumbering the competition more so than any real "superiority"


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Since we've gone intellectual in conversation, rather than barbaric, I'd like to offer a slight correction.
> 
> 
> 
> Chloroplasts might be a better analogy than chlorophyll, which is the chemical agent of a plant's "respiration".
> Interestingly, it looks almost identical to hemoglobin, except for the center, metallic ion - Magnesium instead of Iron.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=chl...=4rUuV42tCILMmwGckLzICQ#imgrc=GZu1s3WhB2rf4M:


Oops, chloroplasts are what I meant. I think the swap is forgivable...
That is an interesting fact. I think there's a good reason, too - it's a very efficient molecule. Plants have a kind of photon mirror system for collecting light. Any trouble you've had with your bathroom mirror is squat compared to that, LOL.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or it was a simple matter of luck that she survived the last near extinction of the species
> 
> Another possibility is there were simply more **** Sapiens, so they "won by default" by outnumbering the competition more so than any real "superiority"


Maybe, but generally populations find an equilibrium. Sometimes species will exterminate another species, but it doesn't really happen that often. It's usually environmental or climate factors. Historically, ice ages, meteor strikes, and rampant diseases come to mind. In modern times, we are almost exclusively the drivers of extinction.
I'd say luck has a lot to do with it. Survival of the fittest... Oops, if you don't fall in the tar pit first.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Or it was a simple matter of luck that she survived the last near extinction of the species
> 
> Another possibility is there were simply more **** Sapiens, so they "won by default" by outnumbering the competition more so than any real "superiority"


There is more of this than most are willing to accept. Would you kindly explain this to PETA, the animal rights group, the EPA, and all others who feel that only the evil of mankinds presence is responsible for the demise of any species.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritage, I do not see it as problematic at all. Mitochondria suggest a single common ancestor, congruent with the Bible. Man was the last creation. Technically women, but lets forgive Him that one moment shall we? 

As a creator, an inventor, would you not see it efficient to recycle technology in the creation of more technology? If you wanted to build a better electric motor, would you first seek to build a new electricity given the current electricity was efficient?


----------



## thericeguy

People often state that we are 90 some odd percent identical to primates. Those same people ignore that we are 70 some odd identical to yeast. 

Implies a simple formula, repeated over and over, as a basis for life. Does it not?

Again, my point is that, for me, science supports my beliefs, not destroys them. I do not consider myself as having blind faith. And we have not even touched upon how I think God has saved my own life on more than one occasion.


----------



## thericeguy

Oh, and I have an opinion regarding that "feeling" you get in the plains or woods, but it is unfit for public discussion.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> There is more of this than most are willing to accept. Would you kindly explain this to PETA, the animal rights group, the EPA, and all others who feel that only the evil of mankinds presence is responsible for the demise of any species.


Currently human are the current driving factor behind most extinctions right now. We are single most populous large animal. The earth itself has reason to be afraid of us.



thericeguy said:


> People often state that we are 90 some odd percent identical to primates. Those same people ignore that we are 70 some odd identical to yeast.
> 
> Implies a simple formula, repeated over and over, as a basis for life. Does it not?
> 
> Again, my point is that, for me, science supports my beliefs, not destroys them. I do not consider myself as having blind faith. And we have not even touched upon how I think God has saved my own life on more than one occasion.


It also lends itself to the theory that everyone evolved from a common ancestor, that frisky little amoeba if you will. But it's not my intention to dereligify you. There are plenty of angry atheistic scientists who do that. They're wrong to try, though. People need to come to their own conclusions. It would help if the Bible didn't say unbelievers were going to heck.



thericeguy said:


> Oh, and I have an opinion regarding that "feeling" you get in the plains or woods, but it is unfit for public discussion.


I feel closest to God, the Spirit, life-energy, whatever you want to call it, when I'm in the wilderness. Not a church.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Currently human are the current driving factor behind most extinctions right now. We are single most populous large animal. The earth itself has reason to be afraid of us.


Ever see George Carlin's routine on that thought?
:grin:

Profanity rules won't allow me to post the youtube video..........but there oughta be an exception made for this one.
Google and enjoy.
:happy2:

GEORGE CARLIN - SAVING THE PLANET


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> Under federal statute, you would be criminally and civily liable for your actions. A definitive supreme court ruling is sorely needed, then these threads can enjoy the agonizing death which they deserve.
> 
> With the number of federal, state, and private suits being filed, it should have a decision soon. Injunctions are just around the corner and emergency redress petitions will be filed.


The government doesn't like to hear it but there is always jury nullification. All it takes is one person on a jury who disagrees with the law to prevent a conviction. You get several and they can convince the rest of the jurors the law is wrong and you can get a not guilty verdict. 

There are many laws I could not convict a person for violating because I believe they are not proper. This is one of the last 'stops' the people in the US have for an out of control government .


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Ever see George Carlin's routine on that thought?
> :grin:
> 
> Profanity rules won't allow me to post the youtube video..........but there oughta be an exception made for this one.
> Google and enjoy.
> :happy2:
> 
> GEORGE CARLIN - SAVING THE PLANET


Maybe I will, but I generally can't load YouTube videos.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> The government doesn't like to hear it but there is always jury nullification. All it takes is one person on a jury who disagrees with the law to prevent a conviction. You get several and they can convince the rest of the jurors the law is wrong and you can get a not guilty verdict.
> 
> There are many laws I could not convict a person for violating because I believe they are not proper. This is one of the last 'stops' the people in the US have for an out of control government .


When possible, the government usually refiles under a different statute to avoid double jeopardy, but your point is correct.


----------



## thericeguy

So without making the thread anout transgender again, how far can self identification go?

If a person went to therapy, attended bingo weekly, used a cane or walker even though they did not need one, and dyed their hair gray or white, would they have a legal basis to sue social security for denying benefits because they are 35?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Would you mind not double and triple posting? It fills the pages faster and also seems to increase your post count fast. A worthy goal for some, I guess. Edit your posts for further thoughts and use the "quote+" button to morph multiple quotes in one post.
This should apply to everyone.


----------



## thericeguy

Am I missing something here? I see no double postings.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Duplicates don't come through on the forum often. I'm talking about how you keep posting 2-3 times in a row.


----------



## thericeguy

I do not know why you would imply that my behaviour is intended to promote something as silly as a post count. I was unaware it existed until someone copy and pasted it to me. Do you consider me juvenile?

I participate in these forums on an iphone. It is a tiny screen and is my first cell phone, purchased just a few months ago. I am not a savvy user of this technology. I have no mouse to copy and paste text. I use the quote button when relavent, but on very long replies, I hesitate to use it as it makes screen management difficult. If I attempt to scroll up in a reply to reread the exact wordd used by another member, I can get some pretty strange results including losing any text I may have already typed. So I avoid that. 

If a members comments contains multiple ideas or concepts, I may reply to one section of that post having reread the exact words, then return to the main page to reread a further section and comment. In a moving thread, edited text will never be read as members may have moved past that response. 

Or you can chalk it up to something as simple and juvenile as post count.


----------



## watcher

Two things. 

One, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who gets to make the rules about who gets to use what locker/rest room.

Two, on macroevolution. I just watched a very interesting video on the subject of Evolution vs God. I'd love for a believer in macroevolution to watch it and answer the questions that are put to the people in the movie. I have to travel over the next couple of days then a few days of work but after that I may post the questions.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> I do not know why you would imply that my behaviour is intended to promote something as silly as a post count. I was unaware it existed until someone copy and pasted it to me. Do you consider me juvenile?
> 
> I participate in these forums on an iphone. It is a tiny screen and is my first cell phone, purchased just a few months ago. I am not a savvy user of this technology. I have no mouse to copy and paste text. I use the quote button when relavent, but on very long replies, I hesitate to use it as it makes screen management difficult. If I attempt to scroll up in a reply to reread the exact wordd used by another member, I can get some pretty strange results including losing any text I may have already typed. So I avoid that.
> 
> If a members comments contains multiple ideas or concepts, I may reply to one section of that post having reread the exact words, then return to the main page to reread a further section and comment. In a moving thread, edited text will never be read as members may have moved past that response.
> 
> Or you can chalk it up to something as simple and juvenile as post count.


That's fine, thanks for the explanation. Using an iPhone is indeed cumbersome for foruming; even my iPad is less than ideal.



watcher said:


> Two things.
> 
> One, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who gets to make the rules about who gets to use what locker/rest room.
> 
> Two, on macroevolution. I just watched a very interesting video on the subject of Evolution vs God. I'd love for a believer in macroevolution to watch it and answer the questions that are put to the people in the movie. I have to travel over the next couple of days then a few days of work but after that I may post the questions.


That could cause some interesting discussion.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> Two things.
> 
> One, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who gets to make the rules about who gets to use what locker/rest room.



I think you already know the answer to that one.

Until you post your questions when you get back............

What happens to a person who defies the new "rule makers" even if you just oppose them in court and end up losing?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Currently human are the current driving factor behind most extinctions right now. We are single most populous large animal. The earth itself has reason to be afraid of us.
> 
> 
> 
> It also lends itself to the theory that everyone evolved from a common ancestor, that frisky little amoeba if you will. But it's not my intention to dereligify you. There are plenty of angry atheistic scientists who do that. They're wrong to try, though. People need to come to their own conclusions. It would help if the Bible didn't say unbelievers were going to heck.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel closest to God, the Spirit, life-energy, whatever you want to call it, when I'm in the wilderness. Not a church.


Science looks at what is and attempts to explain "why". Sometimes "how", but even then has to get around to why sooner or later. Had the church not rejected science many years ago, preferring instead to cling to power bases and control, science and religion might not be the mortal enemies they are today. But the church DID tell Cupernicus he was not allowed to point that thing into the heavens, and he did discover many things. The Earth revolves aroung the sun contrary to what the church taught, and the church did a lot of teaching. It created a relationship that I think we still suffer from today. So the greed of men and lust for power can be found in the church as well. 

So science and church basically become enemies, and science is trying to explain why, and never within the scientific community, then or now, would it be accepted to say the church might be right. So we get the amoeba. 

A life form thriving and existing in harmony in its environment. Somehow, though it lacks a thinking mind or emotions, it is not satisfied with that level of success. It strikes a bargain with another life form, also unhappy with the way things are going, and they merge into a more complex organism, with more complex needs to survive, ignore the fact this lowers their chances of survival, and do it anyway, somehow, though we still dont know how. 

See, the church is wrong! Booooo church. 

Hey, if the requirement to the debate is that the church must be wrong, the enemy cannot win, that sounds good. Right?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Science looks at what is and attempts to explain "why". Sometimes "how", but even then has to get around to why sooner or later. Had the church not rejected science many years ago, preferring instead to cling to power bases and control, science and religion might not be the mortal enemies they are today. But the church DID tell Cupernicus he was not allowed to point that thing into the heavens, and he did discover many things. The Earth revolves aroung the sun contrary to what the church taught, and the church did a lot of teaching. It created a relationship that I think we still suffer from today. So the greed of men and lust for power can be found in the church as well.
> 
> So science and church basically become enemies, and science is trying to explain why, and never within the scientific community, then or now, would it be accepted to say the church might be right. So we get the amoeba.
> 
> A life form thriving and existing in harmony in its environment. Somehow, though it lacks a thinking mind or emotions, it is not satisfied with that level of success. It strikes a bargain with another life form, also unhappy with the way things are going, and they merge into a more complex organism, with more complex needs to survive, ignore the fact this lowers their chances of survival, and do it anyway, somehow, though we still dont know how.
> 
> See, the church is wrong! Booooo church.
> 
> Hey, if the requirement to the debate is that the church must be wrong, the enemy cannot win, that sounds good. Right?


I actually don't think believing in the Bible and science is a conflict of interest. I think you just have to separate the two things and not let them touch each other. That was my philosophy until I rejected the church for other reasons. (Contradictions, rules, lack of self expression, just to name a few.) Inherently built into the religion is the idea that nature is bad. (Man's nature and nature itself, perhaps.) This is at odds with my beliefs. 

ANyways, beliefs aside, the Bible is basically non-scientific aside from Genesis, which honestly could be interpreted more as a fantasy than fact. Or there are a number of other explanations one can try out. 

To any regular Christians I recommend simply keeping your faith. Facts and the religion don't get along very well, but faith is important to a person for spiritual reasons. Since many scientists still believe in God or at least a higher-being of some sort, I don't think science is entirely at odds with religion.

Di that make any sense??


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I actually don't think believing in the Bible and science is a conflict of interest. I think you just have to separate the two things and not let them touch each other. That was my philosophy until I rejected the church for other reasons. (Contradictions, rules, lack of self expression, just to name a few.) Inherently built into the religion is the idea that nature is bad. (Man's nature and nature itself, perhaps.) This is at odds with my beliefs.
> 
> ANyways, beliefs aside, the Bible is basically non-scientific aside from Genesis, which honestly could be interpreted more as a fantasy than fact. Or there are a number of other explanations one can try out.
> 
> To any regular Christians I recommend simply keeping your faith. Facts and the religion don't get along very well, but faith is important to a person for spiritual reasons. Since many scientists still believe in God or at least a higher-being of some sort, I don't think science is entirely at odds with religion.
> 
> Di that make any sense??


Yes. But I would be curious to see some scientific truths that clashes with religion. Pull out the big guns. You cannot offend me or damage my faith.

And you are right. The Bible is a history book, not a science book.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Yes. But I would be curious to see some scientific truths that clashes with religion. Pull out the big guns. You cannot offend me or damage my faith.
> 
> And you are right. The Bible is a history book, not a science book.


All right then. Here goes.

Our fossil record is not very complete, but by almost all indications, we did not exist 200,000 years ago. What gives? The science behind mutations, selection, and other forcings are quite solid. Just in the last few decades we've seen completely novel bacteria and disease emerge seemingly from nowhere. The common cold is undefeatable simply because the virus mutate constantly. It stands to reason that many species are different than they were a few million years ago.

Saying the earth was made in 6 days is simply an impossibility. If it did happen in 6 days, maybe it occured like I said, where God exists in a different time frame. If so, why has time slowed down for God in the Bible to match our current time frame? According to some creationists, the earth is no more than 10,000 years old or so. This is false according to every age-testing method available. 

Modern history considers the old-testament religion of Abraham to be an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, the first monotheistic (one-God) religion. All religions before than were spiritual or loosely interpretable. In other words, Christianty didn't even exist then. Why would God let His religion die? 

That's it for now, but those are a few points I've researched more than others. There are plenty of others.


----------



## thericeguy

Understand that I speak only for me. My beliefs are mine and may be unique in the universe. 

I will address the 6 days first. I accept that God is omnipotent. The beginning and the end. Time has no meaning for God as He exists in all times, past present and future, simultaneously. He knows all things that where, are, and will be, and all those things exist at the same time and place as Him. How could one be omnipotent without that reality. 

I realize that answer comes in a form that cannot prove anything to you, but it is not my goal to prove anything to you. Only to share my views, to talk, to interact. 

Creation vs evolution. New species, mutations, changes. I do not accept that Jesus created all this, including us, just so He could sit back as a passive observer to all His wonder. He is an active participant. How could someone passive answer a prayer. Aside from that, noone has ever observed a plant or animal turn into something unpredictable. Noone has ever observed an animal sprout wings because it would be convenient to fly, or to double in size because it would be effective. The changes that we do see, a virus mutation for example, are as predictable as knowing every child will have a unique fingerprint. We will not know what the print is, only that it will be unique. A cold virus remains a cold virus even if it is unique. 

I now have that scroll back problem coupled with a need for sleep. Til tomorrow.

As to your final paragraph, I have absolutely no knowledge at all. The tomatoes have not chosen to share that with me yet.


----------



## Bubba1358

Jokarva said:


> Based on my years as a nurse, and my experience with both, I'll take a shot.
> 
> Anorexia is mental illness accompanied by physical manifestation. Fear of being fat and are fat = not anorexic. Fear being fat and are emaciated = anorexic. It's not that simple obviously, but without the visible symptom of emaciation I never saw anyone admitted for medical treatment. Doesn't mean they didn't get private therapy of course.
> 
> The similarity of anorexia and gender is obviously that both weight and gender exist on a spectrum. Those who think there are only XX and XY persons are missing those with a single X (Turner syndrome), an XXY (klinefelters), an XYY, and however many others I'm unfamiliar with. Those can come with physical manifestations also, but nothing as obvious as being severely underweight.
> 
> Medicine can measure if you are truly anorexic and in need of treatment, but measuring someone's place on the gender scale isn't an exact science. And that's my $.02 worth.


THANK YOU for being the first to answer! This is a good start.

So there's a spectrum of "gender identification." I'm guessing that on the low end is someone who has decided that they are (to quote the Gospel of Pixie) "born in the wrong body." The have all of the physical manifestation of biological sex yet "are" now something else. On the other end are those who have been undergoing hormone therapy, operations, etc. to now have all of the parts associated to the other side. Naturally, there are many in-betweens, with it being a spectrum.

Now, the problems that arise:
At what point on this spectrum is it OK for a biological boy to shower at school with biological girls?
At what point do we let a biologically-looking male in to the restroom with our daughters at the movies?
How can we be sure that the person who claims to be lower on the spectrum isn't a creep taking advantage of all this naivete?


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> I actually don't think believing in the Bible and science is a conflict of interest. I think you just have to separate the two things and not let them touch each other. That was my philosophy until I rejected the church for other reasons. (Contradictions, rules, lack of self expression, just to name a few.) Inherently built into the religion is the idea that nature is bad. (Man's nature and nature itself, perhaps.) This is at odds with my beliefs.
> 
> ANyways, beliefs aside, the Bible is basically non-scientific aside from Genesis, which honestly could be interpreted more as a fantasy than fact. Or there are a number of other explanations one can try out.
> 
> To any regular Christians I recommend simply keeping your faith. Facts and the religion don't get along very well, but faith is important to a person for spiritual reasons. Since many scientists still believe in God or at least a higher-being of some sort, I don't think science is entirely at odds with religion.
> 
> Di that make any sense??


True science and true religion will never conflict or contradict each other. God is the creator the universe, and science is a method to help us understand physical phenomena. If there is a contradiction, either the interpretation of faith or the interpretation of science is faulty. Furthermore, true religion will not contain any contradictions either. If it does, then it misses the mark.

Religion springs from the study of theology and philosophy put into practice. Theology is the study of the nature of God, and philosophy the study of reason and truth. If what we discern from revelation and reason is true, then religion is simply our response to and practice of drawing closer to these truths.

I disagree that the must remain separate. The scientific community has been full of highly religious people, including many that were priests and ordained ministers:


> ... Roman Catholic clerics[1] throughout history who have made contributions to science. These cleric-scientists include Nicolaus Copernicus, Gregor Mendel, Georges LemaÃ®tre, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Pierre Gassendi, Roger Joseph Boscovich, Marin Mersenne, Bernard Bolzano, Francesco Maria Grimaldi, Nicole Oresme, Jean Buridan, Robert Grosseteste, Christopher Clavius, Nicolas Steno, Athanasius Kircher, Giovanni Battista Riccioli, William of Ockham, and others


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists

The point is that God created ALL of it, including our minds and wills. Authentic religion and science must always agree, or at the very least not oppose each other.


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> All right then. Here goes.
> 
> Our fossil record is not very complete, but by almost all indications, we did not exist 200,000 years ago. What gives? The science behind mutations, selection, and other forcings are quite solid. Just in the last few decades we've seen completely novel bacteria and disease emerge seemingly from nowhere. The common cold is undefeatable simply because the virus mutate constantly. It stands to reason that many species are different than they were a few million years ago.


Nothing in any of this denies or disproves what the bible says. Religion can tell us the what and the why, but never the how. Science can tell us the how and the what, but never the why. We need them both for a full understanding.

Of course species adapt and change. There is no proscription in Scripture than says this isn't going to, or can't, happen.



Heritagefarm said:


> Saying the earth was made in 6 days is simply an impossibility. If it did happen in 6 days, maybe it occured like I said, where God exists in a different time frame. If so, why has time slowed down for God in the Bible to match our current time frame? According to some creationists, the earth is no more than 10,000 years old or so. This is false according to every age-testing method available.


The primordial readings in Genesis are not to be taken literally, and if they are, there are plenty of "cross checks" within Scripture itself to corroborate. From your example, we need to look to 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." You're absolutely right - creation was NOT on our time table. These "days" are allegorical (and as pointed out in a previous post, do match the scientifically-established order of the formation of the earth).



Heritagefarm said:


> Modern history considers the old-testament religion of Abraham to be an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, the first monotheistic (one-God) religion. All religions before than were spiritual or loosely interpretable. In other words, Christianty didn't even exist then. Why would God let His religion die?
> 
> That's it for now, but those are a few points I've researched more than others. There are plenty of others.


God didn't let his religion die. The person of Christ is a fulfillment and a continuation of the covenants in the old testament. The essential elements of Judaism are still present in true Christian practice. Modern history, IMO, goes to great lengths to marginalize and reduce Christianity. After all, if it really was true, they'd have to (gasp!) curb their desires and change the way they live. And we can't have anyone doing that now, can we?


----------



## Bubba1358

thericeguy said:


> So without making the thread anout transgender again, how far can self identification go?
> 
> If a person went to therapy, attended bingo weekly, used a cane or walker even though they did not need one, and dyed their hair gray or white, would they have a legal basis to sue social security for denying benefits because they are 35?


Why not? Especially if they were "born in the wrong body." We can't simply rely on biology anymore to tell what a person really is. After all, that would be discrimination. Especially if someone's gender identity is really being a 90-year old intersex. We need an injunction for this.

The logic follows nicely.


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> Why not? Especially if they were "born in the wrong body." We can't simply rely on biology anymore to tell what a person really is. After all, that would be discrimination. Especially if someone's gender identity is really being a 90-year old intersex. We need an injunction for this.
> 
> The logic follows nicely.


What about a wartime effort that involved a draft? You get your letter and head over to the office. I am sorry, but I cannot participate in your war as I am too young. I am very immature for my age and my psychological development is delayed. I play with lego blocks and watch cartoons. I am only 10 years old in my mind. Maybe in a few years. 

These issues, conveniently ignored by some, tear at the very social system in place. It calls many parts of the "social contract" into question.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritage, with regard to the old testament and other religions existing prior, my wife chimed in and shared some insight. 

Creation was formed and man existed. The ages of original ancestors is given account for and it adds up to numerous thousands of years to reach the point of Noah. These people lived far longer than we do today and had great and numerous families which spread across the Earth to create civilizations of sort. 

Mention is made of the "Sons of God" having children with women. I would let the reader interpret that, but my interpretation is non-human. 

Mankind is now so wicked and corrupt that God was going to erase the Earth. But he found Noah, a righteous man, and he saved him and his family. 

It was not until Abraham that God called his people, seperating them from the others and handing down the old covenant "the law" as a guide to live. Until this time, man had no law. 

The wicked people destroyed by the flood had developed idolotry and other forms of worship. Yes, other religions predated the old testament, not because creation did not exist, but because God had not yet chosen his people yet, nor handed down the laws.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> All right then. Here goes.
> 
> Our fossil record is not very complete, but by almost all indications, we did not exist 200,000 years ago. What gives? The science behind mutations, selection, and other forcings are quite solid. Just in the last few decades we've seen completely novel bacteria and disease emerge seemingly from nowhere. The common cold is undefeatable simply because the virus mutate constantly. It stands to reason that many species are different than they were a few million years ago.
> 
> Saying the earth was made in 6 days is simply an impossibility. If it did happen in 6 days, maybe it occured like I said, where God exists in a different time frame. If so, why has time slowed down for God in the Bible to match our current time frame? According to some creationists, the earth is no more than 10,000 years old or so. This is false according to every age-testing method available.
> 
> Modern history considers the old-testament religion of Abraham to be an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, the first monotheistic (one-God) religion. All religions before than were spiritual or loosely interpretable. In other words, Christianty didn't even exist then. Why would God let His religion die?
> 
> That's it for now, but those are a few points I've researched more than others. There are plenty of others.



Well, for starters, you won't find much biblical evidence of the earth "being created" in 6 days or that it is 6,000 years old.
You will find evidence contradictory to that assumption in God's discussion with Job. Curiously, scholars seem unable to date the book of Job, but they do know it's pretty old.
If you start at Genesis 1:1 and go back to the ancient language it was written in, you'll find the first mistaken assumption that results in all the rest about that biblical teaching, namely the 6 day "creation".

I've explained this before in other threads, and may be able to find and link them, if you wish but I realize this is off topic so I'll leave it there.




thericeguy said:


> Heritage, with regard to the old testament and other religions existing prior, my wife chimed in and shared some insight.
> 
> Creation was formed and man existed. The ages of original ancestors is given account for and it adds up to numerous thousands of years to reach the point of Noah. These people lived far longer than we do today and had great and numerous families which spread across the Earth to create civilizations of sort.
> 
> Mention is made of the "Sons of God" having children with women. I would let the reader interpret that, but my interpretation is non-human.
> 
> Mankind is now so wicked and corrupt that God was going to erase the Earth. But he found Noah, a righteous man, and he saved him and his family.
> 
> It was not until Abraham that God called his people, seperating them from the others and handing down the old covenant "the law" as a guide to live. Until this time, man had no law.
> 
> The wicked people destroyed by the flood had developed idolotry and other forms of worship. Yes, other religions predated the old testament, not because creation did not exist, but because God had not yet chosen his people yet, nor handed down the laws.


Unfortunately, biblically speaking that's incorrect.
Besides the point made numerous times that The Word, meaning Christ and ALL his words, have existing since the beginning, there was at LEAST one law given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.
Like every law though, it was broken.


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Well, for starters, you won't find much biblical evidence of the earth "being created" in 6 days or that it is 6,000 years old.
> You will find evidence contradictory to that assumption in God's discussion with Job. Curiously, scholars seem unable to date the book of Job, but they do know it's pretty old.
> If you start at Genesis 1:1 and go back to the ancient language it was written in, you'll find the first mistaken assumption that results in all the rest about that biblical teaching, namely the 6 day "creation".
> 
> I've explained this before in other threads, and may be able to find and link them, if you wish but I realize this is off topic so I'll leave it there.
> 
> Unfortunately, biblically speaking that's incorrect.
> Besides the point made numerous times that The Word, meaning Christ and ALL his words, have existing since the beginning, there was at LEAST one law given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.
> Like every law though, it was broken.


Your last point contains a logical fallacy. It really doesn't work very well to use evidence from the Bible to prove the existence of the Bible. Despite the fact that we use evidence ffrom evolution to prove evolution, it simply doesn't work - it would be like reading Moby Dick, and concluding that since the character killed a whale, it must have actually happened.

If the 6 day creation is erroneous,
1. Why is it repeated and defended so often, and
2. Doesn't it stand to reason other parts of the Bible are either incorrect or fictitious as well?



thericeguy said:


> Heritage, with regard to the old testament and other religions existing prior, my wife chimed in and shared some insight.
> 
> Creation was formed and man existed. The ages of original ancestors is given account for and it adds up to numerous thousands of years to reach the point of Noah. These people lived far longer than we do today and had great and numerous families which spread across the Earth to create civilizations of sort.


Yes, interesting. However, see above quote. If the Bible is XXXX years old, does it really mean the earth is that old too? Maybe God set things in motion and then chimed in again later when he thought People needed to be created.



thericeguy said:


> Mention is made of the "Sons of God" having children with women. I would let the reader interpret that, but my interpretation is non-human.
> 
> Mankind is now so wicked and corrupt that God was going to erase the Earth. But he found Noah, a righteous man, and he saved him and his family.
> 
> It was not until Abraham that God called his people, seperating them from the others and handing down the old covenant "the law" as a guide to live. Until this time, man had no law.
> 
> The wicked people destroyed by the flood had developed idolotry and other forms of worship. Yes, other religions predated the old testament, not because creation did not exist, but because God had not yet chosen his people yet, nor handed down the laws.


I have a problem with the idea of fa flood, too. Many cultures do have a surprising flood story. Whether or not they all match up is a different question. I have a hypothesis of attributing these stories to the last Ice Age, when in any case, if the glaciers melted in the right spot, could release absolutely prodigious amounts of water. 
ANother thing I have a problem with is God wiping out whole civilizations repeatedly. I take leave with the idea that no one, even the children, could have been worthy of redemption. It is the ultimate injustice to be judged by those around you or your parents. 



Bubba1358 said:


> Nothing in any of this denies or disproves what the bible says. Religion can tell us the what and the why, but never the how. Science can tell us the how and the what, but never the why. We need them both for a full understanding.


I respectfully disagree. How does one determine the Bible is superior to other religious texts? There are plenty of them out there, and many have similar stories. 
Science in some cases can explain the "why" by explaining enough different topics. These topics then add up. For instance, we are very sure the earth is 4.6 Billion years old or so. We are very sure humans haven't been around since the beginning. We are very sure species can change and adapt. Add these together and we perhaps have more evidence for evolution than creation. Or creation-evolution.
It's not enough to condemn the Bible outright, of course. Nothing ever will be - it's more a matter of faith than anything. But, as you well know, scientists are highly skeptical, having faith in little aside from the scientific method.



Bubba1358 said:


> Of course species adapt and change. There is no proscription in Scripture than says this isn't going to, or can't, happen.


Ah yes, but can they change to become something completely different from what they were? Just look at how much variety exists in the dog. Most of these changes results from tiny changes in DNA. They're still closely related enough for a chihuahua to mate with a Great Dane, hysterical though that would be. But if enough changes can happen over a very great period of time, what are we left with? The same species? SOmething different?
We seem to be evolving again. People are becoming less warlike. Perhaps eventually war will be written out of our genes. One can only hope!



Bubba1358 said:


> The primordial readings in Genesis are not to be taken literally, and if they are, there are plenty of "cross checks" within Scripture itself to corroborate. From your example, we need to look to 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." You're absolutely right - creation was NOT on our time table. These "days" are allegorical (and as pointed out in a previous post, do match the scientifically-established order of the formation of the earth).
> 
> 
> God didn't let his religion die. The person of Christ is a fulfillment and a continuation of the covenants in the old testament. The essential elements of Judaism are still present in true Christian practice. Modern history, IMO, goes to great lengths to marginalize and reduce Christianity. After all, if it really was true, they'd have to (gasp!) curb their desires and change the way they live. And we can't have anyone doing that now, can we?


People should change their ways and become better people regardless of their religion. Even godless capitalism teaches this through self-actualization and constant learning. People stagnate, IMO, simply whenever they want to or they lose the desire to become better. Everyone has to have something to believe in. For some, this is God. For others, like me, a better tomorrow is what we believe in. Arguably a far more fickle belief than God, true; people are so prone to devolving.



Bubba1358 said:


> True science and true religion will never conflict or contradict each other. God is the creator the universe, and science is a method to help us understand physical phenomena. If there is a contradiction, either the interpretation of faith or the interpretation of science is faulty. Furthermore, true religion will not contain any contradictions either. If it does, then it misses the mark.


If two scientific theories are up for debate, one may be shown to be better than the other. Unfortunately, sometimes the lesser hypothesis, still with merit, is tossed out. Other times, they're both right, and a compromise must be made. OR perhaps one is false, conflicting with the more correct hypothesis in every way. It's completely possible for something to be false. I must accept that maybe even reality doesn't exist; it might all be a fabrication.

Further, I don't quite get your apology. The Bible itself contains plenty of contradictions. None come to mind right now, but it generally doesn't take me long to find them.



Bubba1358 said:


> Religion springs from the study of theology and philosophy put into practice. Theology is the study of the nature of God, and philosophy the study of reason and truth. If what we discern from revelation and reason is true, then religion is simply our response to and practice of drawing closer to these truths.
> 
> I disagree that the must remain separate. The scientific community has been full of highly religious people, including many that were priests and ordained ministers:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists
> 
> The point is that God created ALL of it, including our minds and wills. Authentic religion and science must always agree, or at the very least not oppose each other.


Many scientific people have been religious and vice versa. It deoesn't really mean much; there have been Hindu and Buddhist scientists, atheist and agnostics. Many of them claim to have similar feelings of wonder at the universe as religious folks do. 

I do agree that religion can be an excellent source of philosophy and morality. But really, morality is subjective as well. many things become acceptable under the right circumstances. It may not make them right, which is why moral absolutes can be helpful for morally weak people. For others, though, it is restrictive because they cannot explore the world to it's fullest.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Bubba1358 View Post
> Religion springs from the study of theology and philosophy put into practice.


Religion springs from superstition
The "study of theology" came much later


----------



## Bubba1358

Heritagefarm said:


> Inherently built into the religion is the idea that nature is bad. (Man's nature and nature itself, perhaps.) This is at odds with my beliefs.


Missed this the first time and wanted to address it. The idea that nature is inherently bad is a false Christian doctrine (the heresy of Gnosticism, in case you wanted to know) that was condemned over 1,500 years ago. For reasons I don't understand, modern society seems to be turned toward these archaic, discredited theories from eons ago as though they're all new and enlightened.

ANyway, the idea that nature is bad contradicts Gensis 1:31 (God saw what he created was very good). It also does make the Incarnation sensible - God cannot inhabit anything evil, so how can be a human in the person of Jesus yet also remain perfectly God? It's nonsensical.

I'm sorry you were subjected to false teachings like that one.

Matter is good. Creation is good. Humans are good. Everything is inherently good. What makes things bad is our rejection of the good - our misusing things that have been created, whether it be misusing wealth, resources, sex, the truth, or anything else.



Heritagefarm said:


> Your last point contains a logical fallacy. It really doesn't work very well to use evidence from the Bible to prove the existence of the Bible. Despite the fact that we use evidence ffrom evolution to prove evolution, it simply doesn't work - it would be like reading Moby Dick, and concluding that since the character killed a whale, it must have actually happened.
> 
> If the 6 day creation is erroneous,
> 1. Why is it repeated and defended so often, and
> 2. Doesn't it stand to reason other parts of the Bible are either incorrect or fictitious as well?


Not erroneous - symbolic. Literary. Think of it like the expression "raining cats and dogs." When we say this, we don't literally mean that there are felines and canines falling from the sky. Likewise, these "days" in primordial creation are symbolic; a literary device, if you will.



> Yes, interesting. However, see above quote. If the Bible is XXXX years old, does it really mean the earth is that old too? Maybe God set things in motion and then chimed in again later when he thought People needed to be created.


Interesting idea! With all of the inorganic matter swirling around in spcae for billions of years, he very well may have taken a vacation for a few hundred million of those. 

Don't have time for the rest of it. Sorry 



Bearfootfarm said:


> Religion springs from superstition
> The "study of theology" came much later


My religion comes from historical events. A real person who worked, taught, healed, and claimed a lot of wacky things was murdered, then resurrected. That historical event made everything that guy said make total sense. These events actually happened, were recorded, and handed down. Men gave their lives for this truth - that this world isn't all there is, and that God does care and loves us, so much that he came as a man to rescue us from ourselves.


----------



## thericeguy

In my ordinary life, I really like to keep it simple. This does not mean I lack the ability to understand complex ideas, but I think simple works well a lot. Why? Because of the fact that when working out a 23 step math problem, even is every technique is executed in proper form, failing to carry the 1 in step 1 will yield a completely erroneous answer. 

How is this relavent? If the theory that as the Earth cooled, pools of raw material coalesced into poly chain, which combined into life forms is an assumption, then everything that follows can be no more accurate than an assumption. The errors in any one step do not lessen with subsequent correct steps. 

But for the sake of debate, lets just give you that one free. We have a simple life form in a pool spontaneously formed. My reason says that lifeform would be the perfect life form to exist in that environment as it was created by the environment. Question 1; why would a life form perfect for an environment change?

The theory goes on to suggest that one simple life form combined with other simple life forms to create multicelled more complex life forms. Question 2; where did the other life form come from? If another pool, there must have been a different environment else this secondary location would have created the same life form as pool one since it is sn environment driven event. 

This starts to set off red flags for me. Two events in two locations producing two outcomes but close enough together in geologic time to exist together enough to combine. This suggests that the spontaneous creation of life forms must be relatively easy to occur so close together. Question 3; why has the spontaneous creation of life forms stopped?

But lets give you all that free. It happened just like they say on Nova. Earth cooled. Goop became life. Life added to other life. Complex life exists. 

This complex life, they say, existed in an atmosphere of sulphur, carbon monoxide and dioxide, in an oxygen deficient environment. But yet we know today we live in an oxygen rich environment. No worries they say. Got that covered. A life form developed that existed in this environment, but converted inputs to oxygen. Respiration was born. Weeee. 

Ok, so now we have a life form, spontaneously formed, which takes in one input and gives a totally different output, and that output destroys the input, thus eventually destroying the organism itself as it cannot live in the environment it created itself. Hmmmm. That one rocking amoeba there. And since the altering of the atmosphere will kill off all those organisms which gave rise yo this new life form as the environment changes, we in essence have burned the blueprint. No going back. Oxygen or bust. 

So now we rely upon the idea that intermediate life forms must self create which can carry this transformation forward through to equilibrium. 5% oxygen. 10. 50. With each step requiring a new life form capable of existing in one atmosphere while creating one that will eventually extinct it. And the chain cannot stop until we get a modern environment, or evolution stalls. No error can be made, or global extinction occurs with no way to go back. All previous life forms would be gone from this new altered atmosphere. 

Have we reached a point where reasonable men should throw up their hands and call this a desperate attempt to explain something that happened (creation of life) and we have NO idea how? Was it God? Was it goo? Was it a crashed alien whos DNA gave rise to everything we see? Is there no universe at all, and I am the only being that exists, and you and everything in it are figments of my imagination?

I cannot say which is an absolute truth. For me, God answers the questions. I find a series of precarious near extinction events coming off flawlessly in a random way to be obsurd. If I am wrong, I feel certain of one thing. They are too. No way some goop became the system I see around me every day, unless, of course, it is all in my mind. 

Keep it simple.


----------



## thericeguy

In simpler words, I find the theory of existence put forward by the movie The Matrix to be more plausible than the cooling goop theory.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> My religion comes from historical events. A real person who worked, taught, healed, and claimed a lot of wacky things was murdered, then resurrected. That historical event made everything that guy said make total sense. *These events actually happened*, were recorded, and handed down. Men gave their lives for this truth - that this world isn't all there is, and that God does care and loves us, so much that he came as a man to rescue us from ourselves.


That's the *story*.

The story doesn't constitute "proof"

Other religions say other things, and also claim their versions are "truth"


----------



## Bubba1358

Bearfootfarm said:


> The story doesn't constitute "proof"


Very well.

Please define "proof."


----------



## thericeguy

Bubba1358 said:


> Very well.
> 
> Please define "proof."


Lol. This will get good.


----------



## Farmerga

Bubba1358 said:


> Very well.
> 
> Please define "proof."


To their eyes, there can be no proof.

For example, prove that the Civil War happened. 

We have stories, but, those are just that, stories. 

We have photos, but they could be faked.

We have bullets, and other articles of war, but, we don't KNOW that they were used in the supposed War Between the States.


----------



## thericeguy

Farmerga said:


> To their eyes, there can be no proof.
> 
> For example, prove that the Civil War happened.
> 
> We have stories, but, those are just that, stories.
> 
> We have photos, but they could be faked.
> 
> We have bullets, and other articles of war, but, we don't KNOW that they were used in the supposed War Between the States.


I saw a youtube. Does that count? I also read it on the interwebz. Gotta be real.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmerga said:


> To their eyes, there can be no proof.
> 
> For example, prove that the Civil War happened.
> 
> We have stories, but, those are just that, stories.
> 
> We have photos, but they could be faked.
> 
> We have bullets, and other articles of war, but, we don't KNOW that they were used in the supposed War Between the States.


The only proof we have for creation itself is bizarre stuff like lingering background microwave radiation. (No, not your cooking oven that also uses microwaves.)
We have solid proof Christ existed. We do not have proof He was any different from Confucian or other great leader. He did apparently rise from the dead, though.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> The only proof we have for creation itself is bizarre stuff like lingering background microwave radiation. (No, not your cooking oven that also uses microwaves.)
> We have solid proof Christ existed. We do not have proof He was any different from Confucian or other great leader. He did apparently rise from the dead, though.


Or other proof which we lack the ability to measure, record, or detect. Lets not assume we know everything.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Bubba1358 said:


> Very well.
> 
> Please define "proof."





> proof
> [pro&#862;of]
> NOUN
> evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:


Saying "I know the book is true because I read it in the book" isn't proof it's real


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> Science looks at what is and attempts to explain "why". Sometimes "how", but even then has to get around to why sooner or later. Had the church not rejected science many years ago, preferring instead to cling to power bases and control, science and religion might not be the mortal enemies they are today. But the church DID tell Cupernicus he was not allowed to point that thing into the heavens, and he did discover many things. The Earth revolves aroung the sun contrary to what the church taught, and the church did a lot of teaching. It created a relationship that I think we still suffer from today. So the greed of men and lust for power can be found in the church as well.
> 
> So science and church basically become enemies, and science is trying to explain why, and never within the scientific community, then or now, would it be accepted to say the church might be right. So we get the amoeba.
> 
> A life form thriving and existing in harmony in its environment. Somehow, though it lacks a thinking mind or emotions, it is not satisfied with that level of success. It strikes a bargain with another life form, also unhappy with the way things are going, and they merge into a more complex organism, with more complex needs to survive, ignore the fact this lowers their chances of survival, and do it anyway, somehow, though we still dont know how.
> 
> See, the church is wrong! Booooo church.
> 
> Hey, if the requirement to the debate is that the church must be wrong, the enemy cannot win, that sounds good. Right?


 The problem is a lot, most?, scientist will not admit they are followers of the religion of science. The video I linked to does a very good job of proving it because they have ZERO scientifically acceptable proof for macroevolution but they believe it to be true. If you were to offer the type of "proof" they use to prove any other theory you'd be laughed out to the room. A lot of science is based on nothing but faith in what they think they know.

I love watching all the PhDs stutter and hum when they are asked for scientific proof to support their belief in macroevolution. All they can offer is data showing microevolution, aka adaptation.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> All right then. Here goes.
> 
> Our fossil record is not very complete, but by almost all indications, we did not exist 200,000 years ago. What gives? The science behind mutations, selection, and other forcings are quite solid. Just in the last few decades we've seen completely novel bacteria and disease emerge seemingly from nowhere. The common cold is undefeatable simply because the virus mutate constantly. It stands to reason that many species are different than they were a few million years ago.
> 
> Saying the earth was made in 6 days is simply an impossibility. If it did happen in 6 days, maybe it occured like I said, where God exists in a different time frame. If so, why has time slowed down for God in the Bible to match our current time frame? According to some creationists, the earth is no more than 10,000 years old or so. This is false according to every age-testing method available.
> 
> Modern history considers the old-testament religion of Abraham to be an offshoot of Zoroastrianism, the first monotheistic (one-God) religion. All religions before than were spiritual or loosely interpretable. In other words, Christianty didn't even exist then. Why would God let His religion die?
> 
> That's it for now, but those are a few points I've researched more than others. There are plenty of others.


 Funny, you see it as "an impossibility" to create the Earth in 6 days but its entirely possible to create an entire universe in a period of time so small we can't really measure it?

The only way to believe the big bang theory and the theory of macroevolution is to violate many the very laws scientist say can not be violated.


----------



## thericeguy

Watcher, pls do not attack Heritage. I ask nicely. He or she has been very respectful of Christian beliefs. Definately not the person to wail on. I am waiting for his curiosity to have him ask what I think he feels in the woods. It will happen, even if he/she doesnt want it to happen 

Sincere debate, no problem. They shy away from nothing.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> Funny, you see it as "an impossibility" to create the Earth in 6 days but its entirely possible to create an entire universe in a period of time so small we can't really measure it?
> 
> The only way to believe the big bang theory and the theory of macroevolution is to violate many the very laws scientist say can not be violated.


So which impossibility is more possible?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Watcher, pls do not attack Heritage. I ask nicely. He or she has been very respectful of Christian beliefs. Definately not the person to wail on. I am waiting for his curiosity to have him ask what I think he feels in the woods. It will happen, even if he/she doesnt want it to happen
> 
> Sincere debate, no problem. They shy away from nothing.


Thanks. I think I know what think I think while in the woods. The only thing I feel is peace and serenity, a sense of understanding. What do you think?
Eta I am male. It helped when my user title said "The cream separator guy."


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Your last point contains a logical fallacy. It really doesn't work very well to use evidence from the Bible to prove the existence of the Bible. Despite the fact that we use evidence ffrom evolution to prove evolution, it simply doesn't work - it would be like reading Moby Dick, and concluding that since the character killed a whale, it must have actually happened.


Isn't this just what "science" does with the "fossils record"? You see that you can use selective breeding of horses to make a tiny horse therefore you conclude you can selective breed horses to make a fish if you have enough time.




Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, interesting. However, see above quote. If the Bible is XXXX years old, does it really mean the earth is that old too? Maybe God set things in motion and then chimed in again later when he thought People needed to be created.


The problem science has is their age is based on assumptions and guesses. There is no scientific proof showing how long it takes for mud to turn rock. There also is no proof showing how long it takes for a river to erode rock.




Heritagefarm said:


> ANother thing I have a problem with is God wiping out whole civilizations repeatedly. I take leave with the idea that no one, even the children, could have been worthy of redemption. It is the ultimate injustice to be judged by those around you or your parents.


Ok, you have a problem with it. I have a problem with the shot clock and three point line in basketball. But you and I don't get to make the rules.




Heritagefarm said:


> Science in some cases can explain the "why" by explaining enough different topics. These topics then add up. For instance, we are very sure the earth is 4.6 Billion years old or so.


Based on what scientifically proven data?




Heritagefarm said:


> We are very sure humans haven't been around since the beginning. We are very sure species can change and adapt. Add these together and we perhaps have more evidence for evolution than creation. Or creation-evolution.


Again macroevolution can only be accepted if you are willing to ignore the violations of accepted and scientifically proven laws.





Heritagefarm said:


> Ah yes, but can they change to become something completely different from what they were? Just look at how much variety exists in the dog. Most of these changes results from tiny changes in DNA. They're still closely related enough for a chihuahua to mate with a Great Dane, hysterical though that would be. But if enough changes can happen over a very great period of time, what are we left with? The same species? SOmething different?.


So you admit there is no scientific 'proof' of macroevolution and you only accept it on FAITH that what you BELIEVE is true.




Heritagefarm said:


> If two scientific theories are up for debate, one may be shown to be better than the other. Unfortunately, sometimes the lesser hypothesis, still with merit, is tossed out. Other times, they're both right, and a compromise must be made. OR perhaps one is false, conflicting with the more correct hypothesis in every way. It's completely possible for something to be false. I must accept that maybe even reality doesn't exist; it might all be a fabrication..


Ok there are two theories. One is shown to be true based on repeated observations and repeatable experiments. The second theory is based on things which can not be observed nor be shown to be proven via experimentation and on top of that for it to be true it must violate repeated observations and data collected in many experiments.

Would you keep theory #2? If not you must throw out the theory of macroevolution.


----------



## thericeguy

Your father, Jesus, longs to know you, to touch you. When you remove yourself from man and go out in to creation, you become nearer to Him. He is reaching out to you. I see Him with a finger a hairs breath from your face, sitting on the edge of His seat. He awaits your invitation to move that hairs distance to touch you. He waits for the "are you out there?" That is what I think you feel.

He will never give up on you.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> Watcher, pls do not attack Heritage. I ask nicely. He or she has been very respectful of Christian beliefs. Definately not the person to wail on. I am waiting for his curiosity to have him ask what I think he feels in the woods. It will happen, even if he/she doesnt want it to happen
> 
> Sincere debate, no problem. They shy away from nothing.


I don't "attack" anyone.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> So which impossibility is more possible?




So you now admit creation is just as possible as the big bang?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritage, reread Genesis. It does not say the universe was created in 1 day. The universe was created and at the end of that a day passed, once light and darkness were seperated.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Your father, Jesus, longs to know you, to touch you. When you remove yourself from man and go out in to creation, you become nearer to Him. He is reaching out to you. I see Him with a finger a hairs breath from your face, sitting on the edge of His seat. He awaits your invitation to move that hairs distance to touch you. He waits for the "are you out there?" That is what I think you feel.
> 
> He will never give up on you.


Your sentiments are certainly appreciated. it shows genuine concern for me, and I can sense that. I have always felt nearer to creation when I'm in nature, with life. I feel like a hypocrite sometimes, because I can feel nature, but the logic in me runs numbers and averages and scientific facts. One thing is for sure, though; organized religion is not for me. Too many rules, too many differences, too much guilt. I could probably find a church I liked, but they'd be way closer to pagans than Christians. And then I'd argue with them because they studied astrology. :rolleyes
Have a good night everyone. I'm currently reading philosophy by, of all people, Ayn Rand.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Your sentiments are certainly appreciated. it shows genuine concern for me, and I can sense that. I have always felt nearer to creation when I'm in nature, with life. I feel like a hypocrite sometimes, because I can feel nature, but the logic in me runs numbers and averages and scientific facts. One thing is for sure, though; organized religion is not for me. Too many rules, too many differences, too much guilt. I could probably find a church I liked, but they'd be way closer to pagans than Christians. And then I'd argue with them because they studied astrology. :rolleyes
> Have a good night everyone. I'm currently reading philosophy by, of all people, Ayn Rand.


I do not attend a church. I find them filled with people and attitudes I do not appreciate. Do not let man keep you from Him. Good night.


----------



## thericeguy

And for you to catch tomorrow, Christianity has only one rule. 

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. 

Thats it. No other rules. Anyone who tells you otherwise, in my opinion, has not read the Bible. What you voluntarily do because you become a believer, the changes you choose to make in yourself, those come from free will.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Your last point contains a logical fallacy. It really doesn't work very well to use evidence from the Bible to prove the existence of the Bible. Despite the fact that we use evidence ffrom evolution to prove evolution, it simply doesn't work - it would be like reading Moby Dick, and concluding that since the character killed a whale, it must have actually happened.
> 
> If the 6 day creation is erroneous,
> 1. Why is it repeated and defended so often, and
> 2. Doesn't it stand to reason other parts of the Bible are either incorrect or fictitious as well?
> 
> Yes, interesting. However, see above quote. If the Bible is XXXX years old, does it really mean the earth is that old too? Maybe God set things in motion and then chimed in again later when he thought People needed to be created.
> 
> 
> Further, I don't quite get your apology. The Bible itself contains plenty of contradictions. None come to mind right now, but it generally doesn't take me long to find them.


Yes, I know that using the Bible to explain what God has said or done is called a "logical fallacy".
But that's all I got to work with right now, sorry, LOL.
I don't put much stock in what men say about God. To take their counsel and "wisdom" over His seems to qualify as that logical fallacy thing, too. 

As far as why are erroneous things often repeated - you only need to examine human nature and its many manifestations of foolishness.

Why do you think it says "STUDY to show thyself approved"?
That doesn't mean read a verse and talk about your dog for a half an hour.:roll eyes:

The specific answer to your question is imp[roper study of languages and translations.
"In the beginning the earth *was* void."

Go to any other language in the world, and translate the verb "to be" into English and start using them in sentences.
Am, was, is, are, became, become, etc.
See how many times you can get a sentence to sound "right" or get one to sound "wrong". More importantly, see how often what the foreigner said, isn't what they actually meant when you translated it.

IOW, go back and read the verse I quoted, and instead of *was*, use a similar translation, "*became*".







> Many scientific people have been religious and vice versa. It deoesn't really mean much; there have been Hindu and Buddhist scientists, atheist and agnostics. Many of them claim to have similar feelings of wonder at the universe as religious folks do.
> 
> I do agree that religion can be an excellent source of philosophy and morality. But really, morality is subjective as well. many things become acceptable under the right circumstances. It may not make them right, which is why moral absolutes can be helpful for morally weak people. For others, though, it is restrictive because they cannot explore the world to it's fullest.


Yep
That's why living by the rules or "the Law" is not going to work. Live by faith instead.





Heritagefarm said:


> Your sentiments are certainly appreciated. it shows genuine concern for me, and I can sense that. I have always felt nearer to creation when I'm in nature, with life. I feel like a hypocrite sometimes, because I can feel nature, but the logic in me runs numbers and averages and scientific facts. One thing is for sure, though; organized religion is not for me. Too many rules, too many differences, too much guilt. I could probably find a church I liked, but they'd be way closer to pagans than Christians. And then I'd argue with them because they studied astrology. :rolleyes
> Have a good night everyone. I'm currently reading philosophy by, of all people, Ayn Rand.



"Seek and ye shall find."

It took many years to find a church that truly followed God, almost 40.
And since God created the astrological signs (it's mentioned more than once, even the named constellations) we don't mind studying it.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> And for you to catch tomorrow, Christianity has only one rule.
> 
> John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.
> 
> Thats it. No other rules. Anyone who tells you otherwise, in my opinion, has not read the Bible. What you voluntarily do because you become a believer, the changes you choose to make in yourself, those come from free will.


So you think Satan will be in Heaven? After all he clearly believes that Christ is the Son of God.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> So you think Satan will be in Heaven? After all he clearly believes that Christ is the Son of God.


I have said it quite a few times in my life and feel I should say it again. 

The greatest enemy of Christianity is Christians. 

IMO, the first person to gain heaven thru Christ died on a cross next to Him. Wonder how many "things" he managed to do in those few minutes left to his life. Or maybe there is some other set of rules for "those being crucified next to Jesus" people.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> Funny, you see it as "an impossibility" to create the Earth in 6 days but its entirely possible to create an entire universe in a period of time so small we can't really measure it?
> 
> The only way to believe the big bang theory and the theory of macroevolution is to violate many the very laws scientist say can not be violated.


Please read some of my previous writ. You will find I have condemned neither evolution nor creation, despite the fact I argue in favor of evolution. Also, which laws do they violate please? Clearly creation violates almost all physical rules of nature.



thericeguy said:


> In my ordinary life, I really like to keep it simple. This does not mean I lack the ability to understand complex ideas, but I think simple works well a lot. Why? Because of the fact that when working out a 23 step math problem, even is every technique is executed in proper form, failing to carry the 1 in step 1 will yield a completely erroneous answer.
> 
> How is this relavent? If the theory that as the Earth cooled, pools of raw material coalesced into poly chain, which combined into life forms is an assumption, then everything that follows can be no more accurate than an assumption. The errors in any one step do not lessen with subsequent correct steps.
> 
> But for the sake of debate, lets just give you that one free. We have a simple life form in a pool spontaneously formed. My reason says that lifeform would be the perfect life form to exist in that environment as it was created by the environment. Question 1; why would a life form perfect for an environment change?
> 
> The theory goes on to suggest that one simple life form combined with other simple life forms to create multicelled more complex life forms. Question 2; where did the other life form come from? If another pool, there must have been a different environment else this secondary location would have created the same life form as pool one since it is sn environment driven event.
> 
> This starts to set off red flags for me. Two events in two locations producing two outcomes but close enough together in geologic time to exist together enough to combine. This suggests that the spontaneous creation of life forms must be relatively easy to occur so close together. Question 3; why has the spontaneous creation of life forms stopped?
> 
> But lets give you all that free. It happened just like they say on Nova. Earth cooled. Goop became life. Life added to other life. Complex life exists.
> 
> This complex life, they say, existed in an atmosphere of sulphur, carbon monoxide and dioxide, in an oxygen deficient environment. But yet we know today we live in an oxygen rich environment. No worries they say. Got that covered. A life form developed that existed in this environment, but converted inputs to oxygen. Respiration was born. Weeee.
> 
> Ok, so now we have a life form, spontaneously formed, which takes in one input and gives a totally different output, and that output destroys the input, thus eventually destroying the organism itself as it cannot live in the environment it created itself. Hmmmm. That one rocking amoeba there. And since the altering of the atmosphere will kill off all those organisms which gave rise yo this new life form as the environment changes, we in essence have burned the blueprint. No going back. Oxygen or bust.
> 
> So now we rely upon the idea that intermediate life forms must self create which can carry this transformation forward through to equilibrium. 5% oxygen. 10. 50. With each step requiring a new life form capable of existing in one atmosphere while creating one that will eventually extinct it. And the chain cannot stop until we get a modern environment, or evolution stalls. No error can be made, or global extinction occurs with no way to go back. All previous life forms would be gone from this new altered atmosphere.
> 
> Have we reached a point where reasonable men should throw up their hands and call this a desperate attempt to explain something that happened (creation of life) and we have NO idea how? Was it God? Was it goo? Was it a crashed alien whos DNA gave rise to everything we see? Is there no universe at all, and I am the only being that exists, and you and everything in it are figments of my imagination?
> 
> I cannot say which is an absolute truth. For me, God answers the questions. I find a series of precarious near extinction events coming off flawlessly in a random way to be obsurd. If I am wrong, I feel certain of one thing. They are too. No way some goop became the system I see around me every day, unless, of course, it is all in my mind.
> 
> Keep it simple.


ALl right, so there are a few different theories about how life could have sprang into existence. One of the least magical is abiogenesis, which purports the possibility of lightning striking the ocean and catalyzing the first amino acids and such into a life-soup. The old-earth theory is very well supported; our radio-carbon dating can completely debunk the young-earth idea, while more complex radioisotope dating can determine the earth's furthest age. Other dating methods exist, but I recommend people try them themselves first. 
The earliest life known existed 3.5 billion years ago. To put that into perspective, it would take you several decades of counting without bathrooms breaks or sleeping to count to just 1B. 
I will have to look into the organism's tendency to adapt to specific oxygen concentrations. COnsidering the odds weighing against life forming in the first place, adapting to oxygen concentrations is probably not one to worry about over much.



Bubba1358 said:


> Missed this the first time and wanted to address it. The idea that nature is inherently bad is a false Christian doctrine (the heresy of Gnosticism, in case you wanted to know) that was condemned over 1,500 years ago. For reasons I don't understand, modern society seems to be turned toward these archaic, discredited theories from eons ago as though they're all new and enlightened.
> 
> ANyway, the idea that nature is bad contradicts Gensis 1:31 (God saw what he created was very good). It also does make the Incarnation sensible - God cannot inhabit anything evil, so how can be a human in the person of Jesus yet also remain perfectly God? It's nonsensical.
> 
> I'm sorry you were subjected to false teachings like that one.
> 
> Matter is good. Creation is good. Humans are good. Everything is inherently good. What makes things bad is our rejection of the good - our misusing things that have been created, whether it be misusing wealth, resources, sex, the truth, or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> Not erroneous - symbolic. Literary. Think of it like the expression "raining cats and dogs." When we say this, we don't literally mean that there are felines and canines falling from the sky. Likewise, these "days" in primordial creation are symbolic; a literary device, if you will.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting idea! With all of the inorganic matter swirling around in spcae for billions of years, he very well may have taken a vacation for a few hundred million of those.
> 
> Don't have time for the rest of it. Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> My religion comes from historical events. A real person who worked, taught, healed, and claimed a lot of wacky things was murdered, then resurrected. That historical event made everything that guy said make total sense. These events actually happened, were recorded, and handed down. Men gave their lives for this truth - that this world isn't all there is, and that God does care and loves us, so much that he came as a man to rescue us from ourselves.


Many of my Christian freinds support young-earth creationism. This is patently false no matter how it's parsed. According to no dating method available is the earth a mere 6K years old. Further, they do not accept evolution at all, and as that stepping stone, they are skeptical of many other scientific theories, such as anthropogenic climate change and believe conspiracy theories such as chemtrails. They drive me nuts sometimes, but I realize they're not indicative of the rest of the Christian community.
One thing they believe is that man is inherently bad, i.e. sinner. Since man's nature is bad, nature itself follows as being somewhat bad. This is how I interpret their thinking.

Now, if the literary devices in Genesis aren't correct, how many other literary devices are incorrect as well?

Further, history is clear that Jesus existed. Whether or not the religion is correct is, well, being debated. Religion is, I believe, important for teaching morality. But for those of us who must find a different path, possibly with no end in sight, it doesn't work very well. There can be no destination, only an endlessly winding journey.


----------



## thericeguy

Ok, no way I can quote and seperate that on this device. 

Albiogenesis. What has changed since this theoretical beginning that we do not see the rise of new life forms? Perhaps something outside of the expected? As in not a reptile, mammal, fish etc. or even within those groups. We just do not see new life forms being spontaneously formed. Here or on other planetary bodies. 

We still have lightening. We still have amino acids. So why are all new life forms found traced back to a mutation or transformation of a previously existing life form? Ie; the cold virus you mentioned. 

If we accept your billions of years, and we can for debate, is that sufficient time for this event to occur multiple times? Why not in modern history?

I would still like to see it addressed how these simple organisms became what we see today. The interdependency we see in our modern ecosystem is mind boggling. No grass, no herbivore. No decomposers, no grass. The statistical probability that one amoeba became what we see today without there ever being a random misstep which would cause global extinction, well I find it an unbelievable as some do in creation. 

And then I have to consider the pesky problem that scientists cant seem to do it.


----------



## thericeguy

Young Earth creationism. As I mentioned before, Genesis says that God created the universe. He then created days and nights, and 1 day elapsed. So when discussing dating of rocks, planets, or suns, no conflict at all. It just isnt there in a literal translation. 

The issues arise at life. The making of plants and animals and the discrepency to the fossil record, of which I have no scientific or theological answers. It would be high on my "so how did that happen" list when I meet Jesus. Along with numerous other things. I assume I will be scolded for asking too many questions. 

Two things I have considered. If it is acceptable that Jesus created the heavens and the Earth, and all life forms found therein, why does it suddenly become unbelievable that he can create a bone that would produce a certain test result when performed by man. 

Second, we must never forget the great deciever. The one who hates all of us mudbugs. Confusion and distrust are his tools. 

Not the scientific debate, but my 2 cents.


----------



## thericeguy

Sin. Nature and man as inherently bad. As Bubba pointed out, the Bible itself does not agree with that sentiment. Creation is good. Man is good. 

Allow me to take you down a rather philosophical road for a few minutes. Not sure I even have the words to explain what is clear in my mind, but I shall try. 

Jesus conquered death. To Him, it appears, death is a thing. A concrete form. Something that one can subdue, overcome, and master. Similar to what we could do with a dog or cat. But to our reality, it is not a thing. It is a consequence. A state of existence. This implies that Jesus has some altered state of existence, and he percieves and experiences things differently than we do. 

The same holds true of sin. Jesus took on all sin while on the cross. It is accomplished. While we feel guilt, anguish, or a sense of unworthiness, while bearing the weight of all sin, He felt accomplishment. Again, I think sin is more like a "thing" to Jesus, where we experience it as a verb.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> We still have lightening. We still have amino acids. So why are all new life forms found traced back to a mutation or transformation of a previously existing life form? Ie; the cold virus you mentioned.
> 
> If we accept your billions of years, and we can for debate, is that sufficient time for this event to occur multiple times? Why not in modern history?
> 
> .


 How do you know its not happening? 
Any 'new life' would promptly be eaten by more advanced life. Once life begins to take off, 'new life' doesn't stand much of a chance.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Two things I have considered. If it is acceptable that Jesus created the heavens and the Earth, and all life forms found therein, why does it suddenly become unbelievable that he can create a bone that would produce a certain test result when performed by man.
> .


 What would the point and purpose of that be?


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> What would the point and purpose of that be?


Good question. Ask Him when you see Him.


----------



## farmrbrown

watcher said:


> So you think Satan will be in Heaven? After all he clearly believes that Christ is the Son of God.


That is answered in James ch. 2, specifically verse 19.
In the verses preceding 19, is another example of studying the translated words AND the context, in order to grasp the true meaning of the Bible.
I'm sure many Christians, young and old, rely on the general definition of the word "believe" as it is rotten in English, to mean simply "acknowledge the existence" of Jesus.
I did when I was young and was uncertain that was good enough, it didn't seem like it would be.

The Greek word (pisteÃº&#333 and its many variations have deeper meanings depending on the context.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 2&version=KJV
In this case as explained by James, it is more than that, it is accompanied by faith and devotion, not just by acceptance that He exists.
The thief who spoke to Jesus at the crucifixion didn't just recognize Him as the guy from Nazareth. He knew He was the Messiah and Son of God with all the power and authority that brings with it.
The their could not come down from his cross, be baptized and start living a life of good works - as a believer - but he would if he could have, and Christ knew it.


----------



## thericeguy

farmrbrown said:


> That is answered in James ch. 2, specifically verse 19.
> In the verses preceding 19, is another example of studying the translated words AND the context, in order to grasp the true meaning of the Bible.
> I'm sure many Christians, young and old, rely on the general definition of the word "believe" as it is rotten in English, to mean simply "acknowledge the existence" of Jesus.
> I did when I was young and was uncertain that was good enough, it didn't seem like it would be.
> 
> The Greek word (pisteÃº&#333 and its many variations have deeper meanings depending on the context.
> https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James 2&version=KJV
> In this case as explained by James, it is more than that, it is accompanied by faith and devotion, not just by acceptance that He exists.
> The thief who spoke to Jesus at the crucifixion didn't just recognize Him as the guy from Nazareth. He knew He was the Messiah and Son of God with all the power and authority that brings with it.
> The their could not come down from his cross, be baptized and start living a life of good works - as a believer - but he would if he could have, and Christ knew it.


I agree with all that. Given the slightest opportunity, Jesus will reveal himself to any who seek. Once that relationship begins, the rebirth occurs. While we retain free will and will continue life as a sinner, we will voluntarily give up some actions and activities, and end up thankful to be free of them. In this lies devotion, worship, and gratitude. A full understanding of the gift we recieve snd how it is not because of us that we recieve it. But it does start with a simple act of faith.

What turns so many off from faith, what I hear most often, is people do not want to give up things which they enjoy. They have a notion that being Christian is no fun. No topless bar. No whiskey drunks. No bagging the hottie down the street, or the secretary at work. What they do not know from the outside is the immense joy one feels with eternal salvation. When you truly understand it matters not what happens to us here on Earth, out true reward lies with the Father, and that will last forever. It is a truly freeing event. It is not about what you give up. It is about what you gain.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> I agree with all that. Given the slightest opportunity, Jesus will reveal himself to any who seek. Once that relationship begins, the rebirth occurs. While we retain free will and will continue life as a sinner, we will voluntarily give up some actions and activities, and end up thankful to be free of them. In this lies devotion, worship, and gratitude. A full understanding of the gift we recieve snd how it is not because of us that we recieve it. But it does start with a simple act of faith.
> 
> What turns so many off from faith, what I hear most often, is people do not want to give up things which they enjoy. They have a *notion* that being Christian is no fun. No topless bar. No whiskey drunks. No bagging the hottie down the street, or the secretary at work. What they do not know from the outside is the immense joy one feels with eternal salvation. When you truly understand it matters not what happens to us here on Earth, out true reward lies with the Father, and that will last forever. It is a truly freeing event. It is not about what you give up. It is about what you gain.


I have a problem with the last paragraph. It's something I've disagreed with watcher several times now, and still do. It's the notion that as soon as one loses God, moral depravity descends. 

Case 1: When I left Christianity, I did not start behaving any differently. No drunken nights, no prostitutes or exploits, no debauchery. It simply doesn't suit me. 
Case 2: I know several people who have even better morals and values than myself. Several of them are my freinds, and others I know through work. They consider themselves "spiritual," a vague term I sometimes apply to myself, to separate themselves from religious people. They uphold the law and help people and live good lives.
Case 3: Conversely, I know many Christians who attend a church and then return home, beat their wives, claim to love God, some of them are racist, most will rip off anyone given a chance. They hide behind religion and are not true Christians.

Point is, there are all types of people out there, not all necessarily bad, nor good.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I have a problem with the last paragraph. It's something I've disagreed with watcher several times now, and still do. It's the notion that as soon as one loses God, moral depravity descends.
> 
> Case 1: When I left Christianity, I did not start behaving any differently. No drunken nights, no prostitutes or exploits, no debauchery. It simply doesn't suit me.
> Case 2: I know several people who have even better morals and values than myself. Several of them are my freinds, and others I know through work. They consider themselves "spiritual," a vague term I sometimes apply to myself, to separate themselves from religious people. They uphold the law and help people and live good lives.
> Case 3: Conversely, I know many Christians who attend a church and then return home, beat their wives, claim to love God, some of them are racist, most will rip off anyone given a chance. They hide behind religion and are not true Christians.
> 
> Point is, there are all types of people out there, not all necessarily bad, nor good.


We both know philosophically that a generalization never applies perfectly to all individuals. Did I not start the paragraph with "what I hear most"? Because a generalization does not apply to all individuals does not make it false. Did you not say that if there were no hell, it would be easier to swallow?

I have encountered more people these statements applt to than not. That is my reality. I also never said once that non Christians cannot be good people. 

I repeat. I do not attend a church because I find them too filled with people more worried about your pant style or size of your plate offering than for your eternal soul. I refuse to let the failings of men keep me from Him. Period.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by thericeguy View Post
> Two things I have considered. If it is *acceptable that Jesus created the heavens* and the Earth, and all life forms found therein, why does it suddenly become unbelievable that he can create a bone that would produce a certain test result when performed by man.


It's not "acceptable" to anyone who doesn't follow *that* religion, which would be the majority of the people in the world
It's just an idea someone thought of


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's not "acceptable" to anyone who doesn't follow *that* religion, which would be the majority of the people in the world


Then that logic does not apply to them, nor did I attempt to apply it to them. Reread pls. We are having a peaceful and respectful conversation. Please do not inject hate into it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Then that logic does not apply to them, nor did I attempt to apply it to them. Reread pls. We are having a peaceful and respectful conversation. Please do not inject hate into it.


Don't confuse fact with "hate"

That's just your current buzzword used in an effort to divert attention away from what I said. You've almost worn it out already Remember saying this?:




> When someone disagrees with you, that does not make is hostile. Thats just another power word again.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Good question. Ask Him when you see Him.


 I am asking YOU if you believe 'Jesus is messing with lab results' when it comes to carbon dating, radiometric dating, etc etc.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> I have said it quite a few times in my life and feel I should say it again.
> 
> The greatest enemy of Christianity is Christians.
> 
> IMO, the first person to gain heaven thru Christ died on a cross next to Him. Wonder how many "things" he managed to do in those few minutes left to his life. Or maybe there is some other set of rules for "those being crucified next to Jesus" people.


You failed to answer my question. Its real simple, will Satan be in Heaven? If ALL is necessary is to believe that Christ is the Son of God then he should be because he CLEARLY believes in Christ.

This is a very good example of why you can't just pull a Bible verse out of context and make a flat statement based on it.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Please read some of my previous writ. You will find I have condemned neither evolution nor creation, despite the fact I argue in favor of evolution. Also, which laws do they violate please? Clearly creation violates almost all physical rules of nature.


The biggest problem is when you get to the smallest parts of life, cells. I don't have a PhD in biology and organic chemistry was one of my weak subjects but if you really want specifics I can get you some. 




Heritagefarm said:


> The earliest life known existed 3.5 billion years ago. To put that into perspective, it would take you several decades of counting without bathrooms breaks or sleeping to count to just 1B.


Again how are these numbers determined? Are they not just assumed based on theories and guesses? 




Heritagefarm said:


> Many of my Christian freinds support young-earth creationism. This is patently false no matter how it's parsed. According to no dating method available is the earth a mere 6K years old. Further, they do not accept evolution at all, and as that stepping stone, they are skeptical of many other scientific theories, such as anthropogenic climate change and believe conspiracy theories such as chemtrails. They drive me nuts sometimes, but I realize they're not indicative of the rest of the Christian community.


So you really think if there was an all powerful being which could make an entire universe he couldn't make rocks which to human brains appear to be younger or older than they are? 

After all one form of dating, C14, has had a black swan event which for scientist means ALL dating by this means must be suspect if not thrown out completely.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Then that logic does not apply to them, nor did I attempt to apply it to them. Reread pls. We are having a peaceful and respectful conversation. Please do not inject hate into it.


Ignore him. 



thericeguy said:


> We both know philosophically that a generalization never applies perfectly to all individuals. Did I not start the paragraph with "what I hear most"? Because a generalization does not apply to all individuals does not make it false. Did you not say that if there were no hell, it would be easier to swallow?
> 
> I have encountered more people these statements applt to than not. That is my reality. I also never said once that non Christians cannot be good people.
> 
> I repeat. I do not attend a church because I find them too filled with people more worried about your pant style or size of your plate offering than for your eternal soul. I refuse to let the failings of men keep me from Him. Period.


Yes yes, very good.


----------



## thericeguy

C14 is only used to date near term events, relatively speaking. When a half life approaches 0, it becomes rather useless as a measurement.

No one, NO ONE, is using C14 to date anything at 1 million years. Anywhere.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> The biggest problem is when you get to the smallest parts of life, cells. I don't have a PhD in biology and organic chemistry was one of my weak subjects but if you really want specifics I can get you some.
> 
> Again how are these numbers determined? Are they not just assumed based on theories and guesses?
> 
> So you really think if there was an all powerful being which could make an entire universe he couldn't make rocks which to human brains appear to be younger or older than they are?
> 
> After all one form of dating, C14, has had a black swan event which for scientist means ALL dating by this means must be suspect if not thrown out completely.


I find it disingenuous to suggest God would manipulate the radioisotopes in the earth to fool scientists. Why would he do that? To deliberately lead us down a wrong path to which we would then come to doubt him? If you're going to blame someone, the devil might be a better scapegoat. 

I can argue the fine points of radiometric dating processes all day. I seem to recall that it invokes determine the half life of a variety of elements. If at the end of the chain of half lives, you have a certain amount of a specific element, such as lead, it leads one to believe there was a certain amount of the original element. Them you can determine how long it would have taken for, say, uranium to decay to lead. Which is a very long time. 

Honestly, I do not really care to teach chemistry at the same time as debating it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> C14 is only used to date near term events, relatively speaking. When a half life approaches 0, it becomes rather useless as a measurement.
> 
> No one, NO ONE, is using C14 to date anything at 1 million years. Anywhere.


Of course not. It's not accurate past a certain point. Yet it still debunks the young-earth hypothesis.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> I have a problem with the last paragraph. It's something I've disagreed with watcher several times now, and still do. It's the notion that as soon as one loses God, moral depravity descends.
> 
> Case 1: When I left Christianity, I did not start behaving any differently. No drunken nights, no prostitutes or exploits, no debauchery. It simply doesn't suit me.
> Case 2: I know several people who have even better morals and values than myself. Several of them are my freinds, and others I know through work. They consider themselves "spiritual," a vague term I sometimes apply to myself, to separate themselves from religious people. They uphold the law and help people and live good lives.
> Case 3: Conversely, I know many Christians who attend a church and then return home, beat their wives, claim to love God, some of them are racist, most will rip off anyone given a chance. They hide behind religion and are not true Christians.
> 
> Point is, there are all types of people out there, not all necessarily bad, nor good.


That's all true and if you had made the universe you'd get to make the rules then you could use your standard of morals to decide who got to live in paradise with you. But you are only a player in the game which means like it or not you have to play by rules in place.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Of course not. It's not accurate past a certain point. Yet it still debunks the young-earth hypothesis.


Dont preach to the choir pls.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> That's all true and if you had made the universe you'd get to make the rules then you could use your standard of morals to decide who got to live in paradise with you. But you are only a player in the game which means like it or not you have to play by rules in place.


Whatever. I can live by my own morals, and love it while I'm at it. The government can tell me how to live, but unfortunately for you, they'll ever be able to tell me what to believe.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> We both know philosophically that a generalization never applies perfectly to all individuals. Did I not start the paragraph with "what I hear most"? Because a generalization does not apply to all individuals does not make it false. Did you not say that if there were no hell, it would be easier to swallow?
> 
> I have encountered more people these statements applt to than not. That is my reality. I also never said once that non Christians cannot be good people.
> 
> I repeat. I do not attend a church because I find them too filled with people more worried about your pant style or size of your plate offering than for your eternal soul. I refuse to let the failings of men keep me from Him. Period.


I have to ask, how do you justify not attending a church in the light of Hebrews 10:24-25? There have been many storms in my life which were much easier to go through because I had a church family to lean on.

I understand you feelings about churches but have strength and keep looking for a Bible following church, it took me a lot of years to find one. My experience is a church with a denomination behind it tends to be like the churches you have experienced. They put more effort in following the denominational rules put into place by man than the teachings of Christ in the Bible.


----------



## Nevada

Heritagefarm said:


> Of course not. It's not accurate past a certain point. Yet it still debunks the young-earth hypothesis.


True. Carbon dating can date back to about 60,000 years, which is far beyond what the young earth crowd believes. But there are other radiometric dating methods that can go back millions of years.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> I have to ask, how do you justify not attending a church in the light of Hebrews 10:24-25? There have been many storms in my life which were much easier to go through because I had a church family to lean on.
> 
> I understand you feelings about churches but have strength and keep looking for a Bible following church, it took me a lot of years to find one. My experience is a church with a denomination behind it tends to be like the churches you have experienced. They put more effort in following the denominational rules put into place by man than the teachings of Christ in the Bible.


It may bother you, but I justify it by meeting people like you.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> True. Carbon dating can date back to about 60,000 years, which is far beyond what the young earth crowd believes. But there are other radiometric dating methods that can go back millions of years.


Yup yup. I am unable to rectify this within my beliefs. Either the test asdumptions are wrong or the assumptions about the material are wrong. God is not wrong. Dunno. Best I got.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> So you now admit creation is just as possible as the big bang?


Yes. If I'm going to have a discussion about this topic with you, I expect you to willing to entertain that evolution could be just as valid as creation. The others in this thread have been fairly open minded. I like to consider all possibilities, but I've found evolution to have too many facts and hard evidence behind it to ignore.



watcher said:


> Isn't this just what "science" does with the "fossils record"? You see that you can use selective breeding of horses to make a tiny horse therefore you conclude you can selective breed horses to make a fish if you have enough time.


Over millions and millions of years, if these horses live in a swamp, maybe they will grow fins and start swimming. We could call them "horshes," or maybe "hishes."



watcher said:


> The problem science has is their age is based on assumptions and guesses. There is no scientific proof showing how long it takes for mud to turn rock. There also is no proof showing how long it takes for a river to erode rock.


I would warrant I could disprove that. Anyways, mud doesn't just turn to rock. Different things can happen to it, though, that change it into a rock. Chemicals may interact with the mud to transform it into rock, or it may be subjected to immense pressure near a tectonic plate, burning it into rock.
Your last example may be false. It's fully possible to measure how much rock has been removed in a year or so, and then extrapolate, based on rock types and densities, how long it took to reach that point.




watcher said:


> Based on what scientifically proven data?


Here's an article discussed who was involved with determining earth's age, and how it was achieved, more or less:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
As for the specific dating methods, Here:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Disproving the age of the earth would involve finding flaws in the radiometric dating processes. Scientists are pretty open-minded, but skeptical. The ability to disprove the earth's age would undermine many fields of science.




watcher said:


> Again macroevolution can only be accepted if you are willing to ignore the violations of accepted and scientifically proven laws.
> 
> 
> So you admit there is no scientific 'proof' of macroevolution and you only accept it on FAITH that what you BELIEVE is true.


The burden of proof is on you to disprove macroevolution or at least tell me which laws you believe it's violating.



watcher said:


> Ok there are two theories. One is shown to be true based on repeated observations and repeatable experiments. The second theory is based on things which can not be observed nor be shown to be proven via experimentation and on top of that for it to be true it must violate repeated observations and data collected in many experiments.
> 
> Would you keep theory #2? If not you must throw out the theory of macroevolution.


Again, please tell me why I should throw out macroevolution.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Yup yup. I am unable to rectify this within my beliefs. Either the test asdumptions are wrong or the assumptions about the material are wrong. God is not wrong. Dunno. Best I got.


Isn't it plausible to believe in God and old-earth at the same time? We may just be missing a huge section of the Bible, it may be incorrect, or God may have taken and stretched that first day into 4,494,000 years.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritage, lets move past creation for a moment, into present day. We have electron microscopes and many shiny toys. Eyes are everywhere. Cameras too. 

There is nothing about genetic selection that discredits God. A bird has a random mutation which gives it a longer beak. This trait allows it to exploit a food resource. Less time gathering food means more time breeding. Survival of the fittest. Completely within the framework of creation. Nothing forbids it. Even Jesus says he will make us new. Change is a central part of the Bible. 

Now as far as the beginning goes. Do you, in your heart, believe they have it nailed? Noone there to see. No microscope. And yet they say some goop made all this and we are supposed to do some "oh, ok". No way. Look out your back door. No way. 

Does nothing to prove biblical scripture, but wow. Goop?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Isn't it plausible to believe in God and old-earth at the same time? We may just be missing a huge section of the Bible, it may be incorrect, or God may have taken and stretched that first day into 4,494,000 years.


I dont know. High on that question list, as I said. Of course it is possible. We are talking about a being who creates life with the power of His voice. All things are possible. He lives next to us, yet we cannot see Him. Our failure. Not His.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> It may bother you, but I justify it by meeting people like you.


It doesn't bother me, you are the one who will have to justify it to God. I just wondered how you justify it Biblically.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Heritage, lets move past creation for a moment, into present day. We have electron microscopes and many shiny toys. Eyes are everywhere. Cameras too.
> 
> There is nothing about genetic selection that discredits God. A bird has a random mutation which gives it a longer beak. This trait allows it to exploit a food resource. Less time gathering food means more time breeding. Survival of the fittest. Completely within the framework of creation. Nothing forbids it. Even Jesus says he will make us new. Change is a central part of the Bible.
> 
> Now as far as the beginning goes. Do you, in your heart, believe they have it nailed? Noone there to see. No microscope. And yet they say some goop made all this and we are supposed to do some "oh, ok". No way. Look out your back door. No way.
> 
> Does nothing to prove biblical scripture, but wow. Goop?


To be perfectly honest, I don't believe it. Science doesn't require belief. Science is a way of seeing the world, through the lens of rational thought, extrapolating known facts and thinking, really hard, about a lot of stuff. It's actually much more annoying than just reading a book that can give you answers. 
As to your initial comment, yes, adaptation is fully within biblical reason because it doesn't create new DNA; most of the time it just changes what's already there. It doesn't take much. Who was it that said we're at least 70% genetically related to chickens?



thericeguy said:


> I dont know. High on that question list, as I said. Of course it is possible. We are talking about a being who creates life with the power of His voice. All things are possible. He lives next to us, yet we cannot see Him. Our failure. Not His.


Hmm... Good discussion., Good night now.



watcher said:


> It doesn't bother me, you are the one who will have to justify it to God. I just wondered how you justify it Biblically.


Dang! You sure take that judgemental thing to a whole new level. :spinsmiley:


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes. If I'm going to have a discussion about this topic with you, I expect you to willing to entertain that evolution could be just as valid as creation. The others in this thread have been fairly open minded. I like to consider all possibilities, but I've found evolution to have too many facts and hard evidence behind it to ignore.


I believe in the science which is or can be proven. When it comes down to believing something based on faith my faith is not in what science/man says.




Heritagefarm said:


> Over millions and millions of years, if these horses live in a swamp, maybe they will grow fins and start swimming. We could call them "horshes," or maybe "hishes."


Seeing as how there is zero scientific supported evidence showing this has ever happened (all we have are guesses based on assumptions based on incomplete data) Occam's razor says they would just adapt by growing wider hooves and lighter bodies to allow them to walk across marshy ground. 




Heritagefarm said:


> I would warrant I could disprove that. Anyways, mud doesn't just turn to rock. Different things can happen to it, though, that change it into a rock. Chemicals may interact with the mud to transform it into rock, or it may be subjected to immense pressure near a tectonic plate, burning it into rock.
> 
> Your last example may be false. It's fully possible to measure how much rock has been removed in a year or so, and then extrapolate, based on rock types and densities, how long it took to reach that point.


And there are experiments showing how this can happen and how long it takes? Or do we just think it takes X years based on what we assume happens?




Heritagefarm said:


> Here's an article discussed who was involved with determining earth's age, and how it was achieved, more or less:
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/
> As for the specific dating methods, Here:
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
> Disproving the age of the earth would involve finding flaws in the radiometric dating processes. Scientists are pretty open-minded, but skeptical. The ability to disprove the earth's age would undermine many fields of science.


It'll be a while before I can read the articles. Its quite crazy around here now, if I don't get back nudge me.




Heritagefarm said:


> The burden of proof is on you to disprove macroevolution or at least tell me which laws you believe it's violating.


I'm working on it. I'm not a biologist so I have to contact one.




Heritagefarm said:


> Again, please tell me why I should throw out macroevolution.


Think about it. If this was any other theory or someone had just told you about it would you accept it with the data given? Is there any thing which meets the accepted scientific standards for proof showing it to be true? Has it ever been observed or shown to be by repeatable experiments?


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Dang! You sure take that judgemental thing to a whole new level. :spinsmiley:


 Someone said they do something which the Bible says we are not to do, and give them specific Bible verses to support it, then I asked them how they justify it, how is that being judgmental?

Judgmental would be saying "If you don't go to church you are sinning and are going to Hell."


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> I believe in the science which is or can be proven. When it comes down to believing something based on faith my faith is not in what science/man says.


A lot of science overlaps. The notions that gravity affects the space time continuum is theoretical, black holes are theoretical, and the idea that anything with mass warps time around it is theoretical. Yet without this theoretical knowledge, the entire GPS system wouldn't work. This is because the earth warps time enough it throws off the GPS satellite clocks. Time passes slower on the earth's surface. This is a combination of theoretical and and actua;l knowledge. 

The point is, you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. Much of the "actual" science is tied to the "theoretical" science. How do you distinguish the two? You run the risk of just throwing out any science that doesn't match your beliefs.



watcher said:


> Seeing as how there is zero scientific supported evidence showing this has ever happened (all we have are guesses based on assumptions based on incomplete data) Occam's razor says they would just adapt by growing wider hooves and lighter bodies to allow them to walk across marshy ground.


There's plenty of evidence for evolution as well, you just have to look and be willing to look for it. Did you know most human DNA is deactivated junk? What's with that? Do you think God was just so bored he created dead viruses and useless DNA and stuck them in our genome? What would be the point in that?



watcher said:


> And there are experiments showing how this can happen and how long it takes? Or do we just think it takes X years based on what we assume happens?


For the rock example, it's pretty obvious, new rocks are being made all the time so I don't need to show you that. For the river-formation example I say that's pretty obvious as well. Just look at how insidious leaks in roofs can be. Water has always been uniquely capable of vast destruction.



watcher said:


> It'll be a while before I can read the articles. Its quite crazy around here now, if I don't get back nudge me.
> 
> 
> I'm working on it. I'm not a biologist so I have to contact one.


You're talking to one. (Amateur, anyways.)



watcher said:


> Think about it. If this was any other theory or someone had just told you about it would you accept it with the data given? Is there any thing which meets the accepted scientific standards for proof showing it to be true? Has it ever been observed or shown to be by repeatable experiments?


Dinosaurs can be as old as 65 millions years. To put it into perspective, humans only emerged as we know them 200,000 years. We are a relatively new creature, yet we've managed to kill over half of the world's wildlife.
Again, it's because so much of the theory of evolution is intrinsically tied into other fields. Disproving evolution would involve dismantling, systematically, vast swaths of scientific fields.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Over millions and millions of years, if these horses live in a swamp, maybe they will grow fins and start swimming. We could call them "horshes," or maybe "hishes."


Call them Seahorses


----------



## Heritagefarm

Bearfootfarm said:


> Call them Seahorses


LOL!



watcher said:


> Someone said they do something which the Bible says we are not to do, and give them specific Bible verses to support it, then I asked them how they justify it, how is that being judgmental?
> 
> Judgmental would be saying "If you don't go to church you are sinning and are going to Hell."


I have a feeling your statements will do anything BUT prompt riceguy to go back to church.


----------



## thericeguy

My conversation with you, which I thoroughly enjoy, prompts many conversations with my wife. No, we are not plotting to "get you". Its about the topics at hand along with some societal decay stuff. 

So last night I was rolling in high form. How Solomon lived a life of absolute decadence. He provided himself with every pleasure a man could desire, plus 3 more. In the end, what was the outcome? He chose the life Christ wants for us. Having a virgin, that shot of whiskey, the hot momma on the stage dancing, they are fleeting moments. True joy comes from the peace offered by eternal salvation. One need not worry about what happens in our measly 80 years when there is eternity to enjoy.

But my point is this. My wife knows I do not attend church. She knows I cannot quote scripture or verses. She knows I could never be called a theological scholar. I find my guidance from Jesus through careful introspection and ponderous moments. And He answers. 

In spite of a horrific education of Bible versus, all my conclusions rambled off last night aligned perfectly with commonly accepted theology. She opened her Bible and began reading verses. It all matched up. 

One only needs to listen closely. 

Lets play a game. Who wants to define "church" in a biblical sense?


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> But my point is this. My wife knows I do not attend church. She knows I cannot quote scripture or verses. She knows I could never be called a theological scholar. I find my guidance from Jesus through careful introspection and ponderous moments. And He answers.
> 
> In spite of a horrific education of Bible versus, all my conclusions rambled off last night aligned perfectly with commonly accepted theology. She opened her Bible and began reading verses. It all matched up.
> 
> One only needs to listen closely.


I attend church and there I'm taught by people who have the gift of teaching. The wife and I also read the Bible and discuss it in our own Bible study time. When we had a more 'normal' life we were able to regularly, weekly or so, gather with a few people and have a time of fellowship and Bible study.

Even with all that I can not quote scripture, I can usually paraphrase what it says about what I'm discussing. Nor can I give you chapter and verse of where something is in the Bible from memory. I don't have those gifts. 




thericeguy said:


> Lets play a game. Who wants to define "church" in a biblical sense?


Depends on how its used. The Church is the entire fellowship of believers. The church is the physical gathering or presents of some of those believers. The second is so important that we are told to not forsake it. 

One main reason is the fact we are all given different gifts. We are told in Romans and 1 Corinthians what theses gifts are. In 1 Peter we are told that we are to share our gifts and it is implied failing to do so is poor stewardship of those gifts. I liken it to a sports team. You may have someone who has the talent to become an amazing pitcher but unless he has someone to train him he will never fully realize his potential. And that trainer may be able to make a great pitcher but he doesn't have the ability to manage the entire team. Then you have the fact an amazing pitcher probably isn't going to also be an amazing shortstop or catcher. Or an outfielder who can gun down a runner at home from deep left field might not have the ability catch knuckle balls or to cut down a runner stealing second.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Why is it assumed that letters written to a certain group about certain subjects hundreds of years ago on the other side from America, apply to everyone at any time? I'm not being smug BTW.


----------



## farmrbrown

thericeguy said:


> But my point is this. My wife knows I do not attend church. She knows I cannot quote scripture or verses. She knows I could never be called a theological scholar. I find my guidance from Jesus through careful introspection and ponderous moments. And He answers.
> 
> In spite of a horrific education of Bible versus, all my conclusions rambled off last night aligned perfectly with commonly accepted theology. She opened her Bible and began reading verses. It all matched up.
> 
> One only needs to listen closely.
> 
> Lets play a game. Who wants to define "church" in a biblical sense?


Yep, that still, small voice is the Holy Spirit, who can teach you more than any man can.
He's there for us when no one else is whether it's due to our faults or because of others.





watcher said:


> Depends on how its used. The Church is the entire fellowship of believers. The church is the physical gathering or presents of some of those believers. The second is so important that we are told to not forsake it.


I'm going to butt in again watcher, but not to be unkind.

What the scriptures say IS true, and the definition of "the church" is the believers in Christ.
But consider this dilemma for a moment.
Riceguy is, where many have been, and some still are.
If he is or was among pseudo-christians or surrounded by young (spiritually) believers being poorly led in that "church"...........who am I to say the path God has for him doesn't involve leaving to find a good shepherd with a strong flock?
If he is truly being led by the Holy Spirit on that path, teaching him in the meantime, I think he's in good hands.
Don't you?


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Why is it assumed that letters written to a certain group about certain subjects hundreds of years ago on the other side from America, apply to everyone at any time? I'm not being smug BTW.


I can only answer it this way. A certain section of the Bible, any section so which one is not important, it has the ability to be relevent across time, both large and small. 

You can read that section as a 16 year old and it will contain a message for you. 

Same words as a newlywed, new meaning. 

Birth of your 3rd child, new message. 

Loss of your spouse or facing mortality, new message. 


It is called the Living Word for a reason. The power comes not from the printed page, but from the One who wrote it.


----------



## thericeguy

Watcher, I am glad that you have found a way to feed and nourish your soul. I have also. Not so many years ago I was very angry at God. I would glare at Him, yell at Him, and tell Him in no uncertain terms that I was mad as a hornet. And I did not speak to Him for almost 3 years. 

I never said to anyone that I was not wrong. In fact quite the opposite. I openly admitted I was wrong, but that changed nothing of how I felt. Like a child having a temper tantrum, I was going to have to cry myself to sleep. And I did. 

Eventually I looked up, and asked if He was there. As promised, right on the edge of His seat, waiting. 

You may worry about rules. I have different worries. I will point out to you, what good is a rulebook if there is noone to read it to?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

[YOUTUBE]fjk5W922z1w[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## AmericanStand

Most of the so-called infallible dating methods rely on a basic scientific tenant. 
That things don't change. That the rate of decay has been a constant. 
But of course we have no proof of that. 
It's just a theory.


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> Most of the so-called infallible dating methods rely on a basic scientific tenant.
> That things don't change. That the rate of decay has been a constant.
> But of course we have no proof of that.
> It's just a theory.


Gravity is theoretical too, but it keeps you stuck to the ground. 

One theory holds that it's the earth's mass that keeps you stuck to it.
Another theory holds that the earth's mass warps space time, and the differences in the gradients hold you to the earth.


----------



## Nevada

AmericanStand said:


> Most of the so-called infallible dating methods rely on a basic scientific tenant.
> That things don't change. That the rate of decay has been a constant.
> But of course we have no proof of that.
> It's just a theory.


I've never heard of a theory that says radioactive decay is variable. What are you suggesting could change the rate of decay, and do you have an example of it happening?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> I've never heard of a theory that says radioactive decay is variable. What are you suggesting could change the rate of decay, and do you have an example of it happening?


My thoughts on this are not about which theory is right or wrong, but merely that we recognize when we have moved away from hard empirical data, scientifically reproducable events, and into intellectual theory on a chalkboard that will not be proven with todays technology, we admit that distinction. Anything less moves us away from a pure science. At basic, keep I know away from I think. 

Noone knows if decay is constant. Noone knows if Trex had green skin. Noone knows if the hole in the ozone layer was there 50,000 years ago. It hasnt stopped people from putting it forward as undisputable fact, even though it is a best guess at best. It dilutes science IMO.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> My thoughts on this are not about which theory is right or wrong, but merely that we recognize when we have moved away from hard empirical data, scientifically reproducable events, and into intellectual theory on a chalkboard that will not be proven with todays technology, we admit that distinction.


Radioactive decay being constant is scientifically reproducible. In fact there's never been an exception. This is as reliable as the idea that water flows downhill. You have no rational reason to question it.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Radioactive decay being constant is scientifically reproducible. In fact there's never been an exception. This is as reliable as the idea that water flows downhill. You have no rational reason to question it.


Scientists tracked radioactive decay for a billion years, and managed to know what the atmosphere was like a billion years ago and recreate it? Extrapolating data gathered for a few hundred years and projecting them backwards a billions years into unknown conditions is hardly unrefutable evidence. Bad science is bad. They could be right. They could be wrong. Just dont tell me they KNOW it, because it involves unknowns.


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Scientists tracked radioactive decay for a billion years, and managed to know what the atmosphere was like a billion years ago and recreate it? Extrapolating data gathered for a few hundred years and projecting them backwards a billions years into unknown conditions is hardly unrefutable evidence. Bad science is bad. They could be right. They could be wrong. Just dont tell me they KNOW it, because it involves unknowns.


You have posted enough bad science on your own. No std's from animals, bees and reproduction. Forgive us if your suppositions don't hold a lot of weight with regards to actual science.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Scientists tracked radioactive decay for a billion years, and managed to know what the atmosphere was like a billion years ago and recreate it? Extrapolating data gathered for a few hundred years and projecting them backwards a billions years into unknown conditions is hardly unrefutable evidence. Bad science is bad. They could be right. They could be wrong. Just dont tell me they KNOW it, because it involves unknowns.


Can you show compelling evidence that the rate of decay wasn't constant at some point?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Can you show compelling evidence that the rate of decay wasn't constant at some point?


There is no need. The impossibility to prove it changed is the same impossibility to prove it did not. Same same. Its a guess either way. What makes one side of that coin right and one wrong?

There is an observation. In our current environment we see X. Therefor it has always been X. <----- bad bad assumption.


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> Can you show compelling evidence that the rate of decay wasn't constant at some point?


As has been proven before, velocity alters the rate of time passage. As the velocity increases - time slows. What velocity do we apply to our world? The speed that this planet has achieved in the orbit of the sun? The speed in which our solar system orbits the core of our galaxy? The speed in which our galaxy travels through the universe?

What happens to "time" if the velocity of any of those variables is altered?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> There is no need. The impossibility to prove it changed is the same impossibility to prove it did not. Same same. Its a guess either way. What makes one side of that coin right and one wrong?
> 
> There is an observation. In our current environment we see X. Therefor it has always been X. <----- bad bad assumption.


lack of evidence is not evidence of it's lacking. That's a logical fallacy. I know of nothing that could change the rate of decay, so why would we assume there could be something to change it? It would require changing at least one of the laws of quantum physics.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> lack of evidence is not evidence of it's lacking. That's a logical fallacy. I know of nothing that could change the rate of decay, so why would we assume there could be something to change it? It would require changing at least one of the laws of quantum physics.


Very well. You continue down a path where truth includes suppositions, guesses, estimations, and best ideas. I am going to continue down a path that employs the scientific model. Gather empirical data based on reproducable experiments, submit that data to the scientific community for review and confirmation of results through reproduced experiments, and acceptance of fact. 

Who has ever reproduced a big bang? A primordial soup? A billion year old environment? A lightening strike that can not only create life, but one that can reproduce as well, and create both those properties in one strike. Who can even prove the gravitational constant a billion years ago?

I did not have sex with her - Bill Clinton.


----------



## Shine

...in addition to my post above is the suggestion that some time in the future when either of the Magellanic galaxies merge with our Milky Way, one or all of those variables will change. To what degree is unknown. Will it be perceptible to us if we are still in existence? And... Has any merger occurred in the past that might have altered the duration of "time" in during the past?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Very well. You continue down a path where truth includes suppositions, guesses, estimations, and best ideas.


All that, plus the fact that it can be demonstrated in the lab with no known exceptions.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> As has been proven before, velocity alters the rate of time passage. As the velocity increases - time slows. What velocity do we apply to our world? The speed that this planet has achieved in the orbit of the sun? The speed in which our solar system orbits the core of our galaxy? The speed in which our galaxy travels through the universe?
> 
> What happens to "time" if the velocity of any of those variables is altered?



That's actually a very good question. Physics is not my speciality, so maybe Bubba could weigh in later?

Space systems have to be either very large or very fast to effect spacetime. The difference between earth's surface and outer space is only several thousandths of a second. Time distortion near black holes is immense, however - a few minutes of your time could send you years into the future. 

Also, this makes me think of how long it takes light from stars to reach earth, which is another set of evidence for an old earth.


----------



## Shine

Heritagefarm said:


> That's actually a very good question. Physics is not my speciality, so maybe Bubba could weigh in later?
> 
> Space systems have to be either very large or very fast to effect spacetime. The difference between earth's surface and outer space is only several thousandths of a second. Time distortion near black holes is immense, however - a few minutes of your time could send you years into the future.
> 
> Also, this makes me think of how long it takes light from stars to reach earth, which is another set of evidence for an old earth.


Yes, queue the red and blue shifts to make up the Doppler Principle. One other variable that was left out is the speed of our universe, should it also be going "somewhere"...


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> ...in addition to my post above is the suggestion that some time in the future when either of the Magellanic galaxies merge with our Milky Way, one or all of those variables will change. To what degree is unknown. Will it be perceptible to us if we are still in existence? And... Has any merger occurred in the past that might have altered the duration of "time" in during the past?


From what I've read, I don't think it would very much effect on spacetime non-locally. The LIGOs sensors, massive, ultra-precise sensors designed to detect gravitational waves, recently did measure a graviton wave - but it came from a super-massive source. 



thericeguy said:


> Very well. You continue down a path where truth includes suppositions, guesses, estimations, and best ideas. I am going to continue down a path that employs the scientific model. Gather empirical data based on reproducable experiments, submit that data to the scientific community for review and confirmation of results through reproduced experiments, and acceptance of fact.
> 
> Who has ever reproduced a big bang? A primordial soup? A billion year old environment? A lightening strike that can not only create life, but one that can reproduce as well, and create both those properties in one strike. Who can even prove the gravitational constant a billion years ago?
> 
> I did not have sex with her - Bill Clinton.


Your arguments continue to devolve into insults. And I thought you enjoyed having educated, adult conversations.

Oh, and someone did recreate the primordial soup lightning-strike. It created all the basic building blocks of life. 

Strike three!


----------



## painterswife

Heritagefarm said:


> From what I've read, I don't think it would very much effect on spacetime non-locally. The LIGOs sensors, massive, ultra-precise sensors designed to detect gravitational waves, recently did measure a graviton wave - but it came from a super-massive source.
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments continue to devolve into insults. And I thought you enjoyed having educated, adult conversations.
> 
> Oh, and someone did recreate the primordial soup lightning-strike. It created all the basic building blocks of life.
> 
> Strike three!


Using real science in a discussion is not allowed. Did no one send you the memo. . I will look and see if I still have my copy.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> Yes, queue the red and blue shifts to make up the Doppler Principle. One other variable that was left out is the speed of our universe, should it also be going "somewhere"...


Here's an article that's interesting. I skimmed through it, the science seems solid:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Interestingly, the [ISS time] passes more slowly than on earth. Normally, time passes slower on eath's [surface]. Since they're moving fast, though, the ISS's time gets slowed back down. I wonder if being in proximity to a fast-moving object like a black hole would make time slow even more?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Heritagefarm said:


> From what I've read, I don't think it would very much effect on spacetime non-locally. The LIGOs sensors, massive, ultra-precise sensors designed to detect gravitational waves, recently did measure a graviton wave - but it came from a super-massive source.


The gist of this is that an extremely LARGE explosion only created a tiny, barely detectable space-time ripple.

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211



> Gravitational waves carry information about their dramatic origins and about the nature of gravity that cannot otherwise be obtained. Physicists have concluded that the detected gravitational waves were produced during the final fraction of a second of the merger of two black holes to produce a single, more massive spinning black hole. This collision of two black holes had been predicted but never observed.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> From what I've read, I don't think it would very much effect on spacetime non-locally. The LIGOs sensors, massive, ultra-precise sensors designed to detect gravitational waves, recently did measure a graviton wave - but it came from a super-massive source.
> 
> 
> 
> Your arguments continue to devolve into insults. And I thought you enjoyed having educated, adult conversations.
> 
> Oh, and someone did recreate the primordial soup lightning-strike. It created all the basic building blocks of life.
> 
> Strike three!


That ended for me when you turned into an insulting individual in another thread "cause it was fun". I notice it didnt make a self rrproducing life. Close rarely counts in science. 

Kindergarten rule. You get what you give.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> All that, plus the fact that it can be demonstrated in the lab with no known exceptions.


And which lab recreated the conditions from a billion years ago?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> That ended for me when you turned into an insulting individual in another thread "cause it was fun". I notice it didnt make a self rrproducing life. Close rarely counts in science.
> 
> Kindergarten rule. You get what you give.


I see. So as soon as I became insulting, you decided to become even more insulting? very interesting tactic.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I see. So as soon as I became insulting, you decided to become even more insulting? very interesting tactic.


You get what you give. Is this concept eluding you too? Am I just rambling? Numerous people under the age of 6 understand that if you shove someone, expect to get shoved back. Ask them.


----------



## painterswife

The rules here are, you do not attack the poster. You may attack the actual post.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Gravity is theoretical too, but it keeps you stuck to the ground.


Ah. . .no. Gravity can be observed, measured and repeated proven in experiments. There are no assumptions nor guesses when it comes to gravity on earth. On other planets or in deep space is another thing altogether.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> lack of evidence is not evidence of it's lacking. That's a logical fallacy. I know of nothing that could change the rate of decay, so why would we assume there could be something to change it? It would require changing at least one of the laws of quantum physics.


Really? You know of NOTHING which would change the decay? How long does it take for U235 to decay in a reactor? Yes I know there is evidence of the reaction but the fact still stands that it takes a lot less than 703,800,000 years for you to wind up with half the U235 you started out with. 

Does that qualify as a black swan event? I'm not sure but it should make you pause and think.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> All that, plus the fact that it can be demonstrated in the lab with no known exceptions.


Huh? Are you saying that we have controlled experiments showing it actually takes 703,800,000 years for half of a sample of U235 to decay? News to me.

Are there any experiments showing radioactive elements with extremely long half lives actually decay the same as those with short ones?


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Also, this makes me think of how long it takes light from stars to reach earth, which is another set of evidence for an old earth.


And here is another example of a scientific assumption. Gravity has an effect on light and time correct? Then how can a scientist say light in deep space acts the same as it does in near Earth space? 

Everything we "know" about the universe is all based on that unproven, and unprovable, assumption.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> I find it disingenuous to suggest God would manipulate the radioisotopes in the earth to fool scientists. Why would he do that? To deliberately lead us down a wrong path to which we would then come to doubt him? If you're going to blame someone, the devil might be a better scapegoat.


Why would He make a universe at all? But to answer your question. I don't think He did, I think man makes himself foolish when he tries to say there is no god and it can be proven by science. 

If you look at history you will find many times when science made a fool of itself because it assumed it knew more than it did. To me the more science discovers the more I believe in God because it shows more and more that things just could not have 'happened'.

Do you think the appendix is a vestigial organ which has no use for modern man? That is what was taught by science for decades but as science studied it more they have discovered it actually has two functions one of which is to act as a "safe house" for "good" bacteria to refill the gut when it has been flushed by an illness. 

Science also used to teach the coccyx was also of no use. But science has now proven that to be false as well.

Who knows what science will discover to be wrong tomorrow.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Whatever. I can live by my own morals, and love it while I'm at it. The government can tell me how to live, but unfortunately for you, they'll ever be able to tell me what to believe.


There you go again making assumptions. I have many times stated I don't care what you or anyone believe. As a freedom loving American and as a Christian I don't 'feel' I have the right to try to tell you what to believe nor how to live (as long as neither interfere with my right to life and believe as I wish). But I do have the right to express my thoughts and beliefs; to tell you that I disagree with you and your beliefs; to show you the flaws I perceive in your beliefs and to try to persuade you to change.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> True. Carbon dating can date back to about 60,000 years, which is far beyond what the young earth crowd believes. But there are other radiometric dating methods that can go back millions of years.


Again C14 dating has had a black swan event so how can you trust it?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Well, we can start with never ever ever hearing about such an event of the news. *Where would your illogical mind like to go after that?*





thericeguy said:


> Are you just mad because I showed everyone *you do not understand biology and genetics,* or how genes get passed on to future generations? No need to be upset. Everyone knows US schools suck. Blame the teachers union.





thericeguy said:


> You are really struggling with some very basic, like first week basic, principles of biology. You are also extremely wrong, and its not making you look good at all.
> *
> What happened to education and basic logic in this world. Geez.*





thericeguy said:


> You get what you give. Is this concept eluding you too? Am I just rambling? Numerous people under the age of 6 understand that if you shove someone, expect to get shoved back. Ask them.


Before I attacked your messages, you'd fired off these insults at Greg first. Tu quoque, ad hominem, begging the question, goalpost shifting, and red herring logical fallacies. Those were just the ones I noticed.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> Ah. . .no. Gravity can be observed, measured and repeated proven in experiments. There are no assumptions nor guesses when it comes to gravity on earth. On other planets or in deep space is another thing altogether.


No assumptions about what gravity is today. Who measured and tested it 10,000 years ago to compare to today to see if the constant is constant?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Before I attacked your messages, you'd fired off these insults at Greg first. Tu quoque, ad hominem, begging the question, goalpost shifting, and red herring logical fallacies. Those were just the ones I noticed.


And none of those things were directed at you. Do you treat someone trying to rob you the same as someone sacking your groceries? You get what you give. In your research to justify your actions towards me, did you go back to the first time greg interacted with me, to see how he established the relationship between us? Perfect example of having no clue about the beginning of something and assuming what you see today reflects the past perfectly. 


Our child mortality rate today is low. Would you encourage some college student to take 50 years of recent data and extrapolate that to 1400? Didnt think so. 

You get what you give. Justify it anyway that keeps you feeling superior.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> Why would He make a universe at all? But to answer your question. I don't think He did, I think man makes himself foolish when he tries to say there is no god and it can be proven by science.
> 
> If you look at history you will find many times when science made a fool of itself because it assumed it knew more than it did. To me the more science discovers the more I believe in God because it shows more and more that things just could not have 'happened'.
> 
> Do you think the appendix is a vestigial organ which has no use for modern man? That is what was taught by science for decades but as science studied it more they have discovered it actually has two functions one of which is to act as a "safe house" for "good" bacteria to refill the gut when it has been flushed by an illness.
> 
> Science also used to teach the coccyx was also of no use. But science has now proven that to be false as well.
> 
> Who knows what science will discover to be wrong tomorrow.


Yes, but for as many instances science made a fool of itself, I can show an example where religion made a fool of itself. Neither ideology has all the answers. The main difference is that good science never claims to have all the answers in the first place. 

Science is so much more than a collection of facts and graphs and charts. It's a way of thinking and looking at the world. Science is like a living, breath entitity- it learns, thinks, and grows with the rest of humanity. 



watcher said:


> And here is another example of a scientific assumption. Gravity has an effect on light and time correct? Then how can a scientist say light in deep space acts the same as it does in near Earth space?
> 
> Everything we "know" about the universe is all based on that unproven, and unprovable, assumption.


Fortunately, that doesn't stop us from making a best guess and landing someone on the moon. many of these assumptions have other things backing them up as well. They're "educated guesses," sort of like when you judge whether or not someone is worthy of assistance. It's an educated assumption.



watcher said:


> Huh? Are you saying that we have controlled experiments showing it actually takes 703,800,000 years for half of a sample of U235 to decay? News to me.
> 
> Are there any experiments showing radioactive elements with extremely long half lives actually decay the same as those with short ones?


It's not possible to measure a half life for millions of years - any more than it's possible to go back in time and watch God create the universe. 



watcher said:


> Really? You know of NOTHING which would change the decay? How long does it take for U235 to decay in a reactor? Yes I know there is evidence of the reaction but the fact still stands that it takes a lot less than 703,800,000 years for you to wind up with half the U235 you started out with.
> 
> Does that qualify as a black swan event? I'm not sure but it should make you pause and think.


Do you have a link for this "black sheep event?"



watcher said:


> Ah. . .no. Gravity can be observed, measured and repeated proven in experiments. There are no assumptions nor guesses when it comes to gravity on earth. On other planets or in deep space is another thing altogether.


Sure, gravity is real. That's obvious. What is far less obvious is what causes it. Gravity keeps you stuck to the earth. Why? There are no magic fairies attached to your shoes. So we have a theory for gravity.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> And none of those things were directed at you. Do you treat someone trying to rob you the same as someone sacking your groceries? You get what you give. In your research to justify your actions towards me, did you go back to the first time greg interacted with me, to see how he established the relationship between us? Perfect example of having no clue about the beginning of something and assuming what you see today reflects the past perfectly.
> 
> 
> Our child mortality rate today is low. Would you encourage some college student to take 50 years of recent data and extrapolate that to 1400? Didnt think so.
> 
> You get what you give. Justify it anyway that keeps you feeling superior.


I've never made any guarantees to be ultra-polite, to you or anyone else. You can put me on ignore if it would make you feel safer.


----------



## painterswife

What does it matter who personal insults are directed at? They are not allowed.


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> Ah. . .no. Gravity can be observed, measured and repeated proven in experiments. There are no assumptions nor guesses when it comes to gravity on earth. On other planets or in deep space is another thing altogether.


Why can gravity be observed any better than carbon dating?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Why can gravity be observed any better than carbon dating?


Because you can establish the time you drop something, how far it fell, and long that took. Now recreate for me every variable yhat has existed or changed in the last billion years. Not really the same are they?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Because you can establish the time you drop something, how far it fell, and long that took. Now recreate for me every variable yhat has existed or changed in the last billion years. Not really the same are they?


Carbon dating doesn't involve a billion years. Only perhaps 50,000.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Carbon dating doesn't involve a billion years. Only perhaps 50,000.


And the methodology is similar or unlike all the other dating methods, including those that go to billions of years?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> And the methodology is similar or unlike all the other dating methods, including those that go to billions of years?


Just to understand what you're saying; it's not just carbon dating that you refuse to believe, but all dating methods?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Just to understand what you're saying; it's not just carbon dating that you refuse to believe, but all dating methods?


I have been very consistent in my opinion. It is not about if I think it is right or wrong. It is suspect whatever answer it produces because noone was around a billion years ago to measure the variables that produced the results you see today. To take todays variables and apply them to a billion, 10 billion years ago is folly. Do you really think nothing could have changed in 10 billion years?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Time... and waves.


----------



## thericeguy

Just to give you some idea of how thinking has changed on how science works during even my short lifetime, when I was far younger and in school, an ounce was defined as the mass of a piece of silver in a vault in France. Not just any piece. An internationally recognized standard. I cannot even find a mention of its existence or any mention of that definition. 

Why was it defined this way in the old days? Scientists wanted to make sure there was a real physical standard that every scale on the planet could be calibrated to, even if any physicsl constants changed. Gravity would be a fine example. 

I cringe every time I hear a scientist utter the words "computer simulation shows". It makes me sad to see the pure sciences die a little more. 

Variables. It is all about variables.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Science changes as better answers come along. That's what makes it so beautiful. If someone can come up with a better explanation for something, a new way of thinking about something, or new evidence that changes a hypothesis of theory, it's accepted and becomes the new, generally recognized truth. 

Acknowledging that we only have part of the understanding of the universe is the beginning. It's imprudent to suggest that just because something can't be directly proven it's false.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> To take todays variables and apply them to a billion, 10 billion years ago is folly. Do you really think nothing could have changed in 10 billion years?


Not today's variables, today's laws of physics.

You make the novel claim that the laws of physics haven't been constant through time. When and how to the laws of physics change, and what makes it happen? Can you demonstrate this in a lab?

You make a novel claim that flies in the face of the scientific community, which has backed its laws & theories with evidence and demonstration. If you make a claim to the contrary the burden of proof is on you. You can't shift the burden of proof away from yourself by suggesting that your claim can't be disproved. If you expect to overturn accepted theory you'll need to defend it.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Not today's variables, today's laws of physics.
> 
> You make the novel claim that the laws of physics haven't been constant through time. When and how to the laws of physics change, and what makes it happen? Can you demonstrate this in a lab?
> 
> You make a novel claim that flies in the face of the scientific community, which has backed its laws & theories with evidence and demonstration. If you make a claim to the contrary the burden of proof is on you. You can't shift the burden of proof away from yourself by suggesting that your claim can't be disproved. If you expect to overturn accepted theory you'll need to defend it.


Allow me to demonstrate why scientists of yesteryear would bother to create a physical standard made of pure silver and define it as an ounce. I hope to convince you that not all constants are constant, and that things we think will not chamge can and do. 

A large foreign object collides with the Earth. We have evidence that his happened before. Some points to consider, if you think me not insane. Did this event change the mass of the Earth by placing material into orbit? Did the trajectory of this collision increase or decrease the rotational speed of the Earth? Did it only manage to move a portion of the Earths mass from one location to another?

As scientists who survived this event begin to answer these questions, alterations to some basic ideas might have to be accounted for. If the Earths mass changed, so has the gravitational field of the Earth. If rotation was effected, so had gravity, along with clocks and numerous other "constant" ideas. With a movement of mass, we will see a shift in the Earths wobble. We already experience this today with ice melt and reformation in a new location. It does not take as much as you think. 

To account for these possibilities, scientists decided to create a standard. This chunk of silver is an ounce. It will remain what we call an ounce even if gravity changes. That is a real standard. In light of this way of thinking, is the new definition progress or folly?

Yes, some accuse me of rambling, or needing to take a class, or babbling, but go ask the dinosaurs just how big of a thing can strike this planet, and how quickly some very fundamental ideas can change. 

Just me babbling on in ignorance.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Allow me to demonstrate why scientists of yesteryear would bother to create a physical standard made of pure silver and define it as an ounce. I hope to convince you that not all constants are constant, and that things we think will not chamge can and do.
> 
> A large foreign object collides with the Earth. We have evidence that his happened before. Some points to consider, if you think me not insane. Did this event change the mass of the Earth by placing material into orbit? Did the trajectory of this collision increase or decrease the rotational speed of the Earth? Did it only manage to move a portion of the Earths mass from one location to another?
> 
> As scientists who survived this event begin to answer these questions, alterations to some basic ideas might have to be accounted for. If the Earths mass changed, so has the gravitational field of the Earth. If rotation was effected, so had gravity, along with clocks and numerous other "constant" ideas. With a movement of mass, we will see a shift in the Earths wobble. We already experience this today with ice melt and reformation in a new location. It does not take as much as you think.
> 
> To account for these possibilities, scientists decided to create a standard. This chunk of silver is an ounce. It will remain what we call an ounce even if gravity changes. That is a real standard. In light of this way of thinking, is the new definition progress or folly?
> 
> Yes, some accuse me of rambling, or needing to take a class, or babbling, but go ask the dinosaurs just how big of a thing can strike this planet, and how quickly some very fundamental ideas can change.
> 
> Just me babbling on in ignorance.


None are examples of the laws of physics changing.

By the way, the mass of an object doesn't change with gravitational pull. Weight changes with gravity, but not mass. Scientists have already accounted for that.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> None are examples of the laws of physics changing.
> 
> By the way, the mass of an object doesn't change with gravitational pull. Weight changes with gravity, but not mass. Scientists have already accounted for that.


Ounce is a unit of weight, right? That might sting.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Ounce is a unit of weight, right?


Weight could change with gravity, but the laws of physics are unlikely to change. Mass cannot change, unless something is added to or removed from the ounce of metal.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Ounce is a unit of weight, right? That might sting.


Yes, but weight is a unit for force, while mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object. An ounce if silver has a particular mass (on earth, at sea level), which will not change with gravitational pull in other locations.

Weight is usually expressed in kilograms or pounds, while mass is expressed in newtons.

1 kilogram (~2.2 pounds) = 9.81 newtons

If an object has a mass of 9.81 newtons then it will have a mass of 9.81 newtons anywhere in the universe, but its weight will vary by gravitational pull.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Weight could change with gravity, but the laws of physics are unlikely to change. Mass cannot change, unless something is added to or removed from the ounce of metal.


And yet you are unable to concieve that conditions across geologic time can change such that tests performed today based on todays conditions may not accurately reflect the conditions present long ago which invalidate your test. There is a saying about assumptions, and the word science is not in it.


----------



## thericeguy

When did I say the mass of an ounce would change? Why are you refuting something I never said? Maybe you learned that from greg.


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> Science changes as better answers come along. That's what makes it so beautiful. If someone can come up with a better explanation for something, a new way of thinking about something, or new evidence that changes a hypothesis of theory, it's accepted and becomes the new, generally recognized truth.
> 
> Acknowledging that we only have part of the understanding of the universe is the beginning. It's imprudent to suggest that just because something can't be directly proven it's false.



Very true.




Nevada said:


> Not today's variables, today's laws of physics.
> 
> You make the novel claim that the laws of physics haven't been constant through time. When and how to the laws of physics change, and what makes it happen? Can you demonstrate this in a lab?
> 
> You make a novel claim that flies in the face of the scientific community, which has backed its laws & theories with evidence and demonstration. If you make a claim to the contrary the burden of proof is on you. You can't shift the burden of proof away from yourself by suggesting that your claim can't be disproved. If you expect to overturn accepted theory you'll need to defend it.



This whole derailment is a lot more interesting and cerebral than the original topic I have to admit. But it would be more relevant on the Big Bang thread, lol.

Nevada, you seem to think that this idea of a shake-up in the laws of physics is only coming from us amateurs.
The truth is the Hubble telescope and its recent findings have caused the scientists of the world to seriously question what they have believed all along too.
This isn't a long article, but if you have the time to read it, you might find these ideas more credible coming from the likes of Stephen Hawking et al.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-143.htm

The link above is where I found this. Just wanted to show that although it is a religious site, it was listed as a link on the How Stuff Works page......

http://y-jesus.com/more/scc-science-christianity-compatible/?gclid=CJr6u-_J3cwCFdgXgQodNFoBfw


Page 2 of 7
The last page concludes with thoughts on the complexity of DNA.

*
Everything from Nothing

Science is unable to tell us what or who caused the universe to begin. But some believe it clearly points to a Creator. &#8220;British theorist, Edward Milne, wrote a mathematical treatise on relativity which concluded by saying, &#8216;As to the first cause of the Universe, in the context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.&#8217;&#8221; [6]

Another British scientist, Edmund Whittaker attributed the beginning of our universe to &#8220;Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.&#8221; [7]

Many scientists were struck by the parallel of a one-time creation event from nothing with the biblical creation account in Genesis 1:1. [8] Prior to this discovery, many scientists regarded the biblical account of creation from nothing as unscientific.

Although he called himself an agnostic, Jastrow was compelled by the evidence to admit, &#8220;Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.&#8221; [9]

Another agnostic, George Smoot, the Nobel Prize winning scientist in charge of the COBE experiment, also admits to the parallel. &#8220;There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.&#8221;[10]

Scientists who used to scoff at the Bible as a book of fairy tales, are now admitting that the biblical concept of creation from nothing has been right all along.

Cosmologists, who specialize in the study of the universe and its origins, soon realized that a chance cosmic explosion could never bring about life any more than a nuclear bomb would&#8212;unless it was precisely engineered to do so. And that meant a designer must have planned it. They began using words like, &#8220;Super-intellect,&#8221; &#8220;Creator,&#8221; and even &#8220;Supreme Being&#8221; to describe this designer. Let&#8217;s look at why.

Endnotes

Click here to read page 4 of 7 about &#8220;Has Science Discovered God?&#8221;*





Page 5


*Accident or Miracle?

But couldn&#8217;t this fine-tuning be attributed to chance? After all, odds-makers know that even long shots can eventually win at the racetrack. And, against heavy odds, lotteries are eventually won by someone. So, what are the odds against human life existing by chance from a random explosion in cosmic history?

For human life to be possible from a big bang defies the laws of probability. One astronomer calculates the odds at less than 1 chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. [14] It would be far easier for a blind-folded person&#8212;in one try&#8212; to discover one specially marked grain of sand out of all the beaches of the world.

Another example of how unlikely it would be for a random big bang to produce life is one person winning over a thousand consecutive mega-million dollar lotteries after purchasing only a single ticket for each.

What would be your reaction to such news? Impossible&#8212;unless it was fixed by someone behind the scenes, which is what everyone would think. And that is what many scientists are concluding&#8212;Someone behind the scenes designed and created the universe.

This new understanding of how miraculous human life is in our universe led the agnostic astronomer George Greenstein to ask, &#8220;Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon the scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?&#8221;[15]

However, as an agnostic, Greenstein maintains his faith in science, rather than a Creator, to ultimately explain our origins. [16]

I liked this next part the best.......

****************
Jastrow explains why some scientists are reluctant to accept a transcendent Creator,

There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe&#8230;This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. [17]

It is understandable why scientists like Greenstein and Hawking seek other explanations rather than attribute our finely-tuned universe to a Creator. Hawking speculates that other unseen (and unprovable) universes may exist, increasing the odds that one of them (ours) is perfectly fine-tuned for life. However, since his proposal is speculative, and outside of verification, it can hardly be called &#8220;scientific.&#8221; Although he is also an agnostic, British astrophysicist Paul Davies dismisses Hawking&#8217;s idea as too speculative. He writes, &#8220;Such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.&#8221; [18]

Although Hawking continues leading the charge to explore purely scientific explanations for our origins, other scientists, including many agnostics, have acknowledged what appears to be overwhelming evidence for a Creator. Hoyle wrote,

&#8220;A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.&#8221;[19]

Although Einstein wasn&#8217;t religious, and didn&#8217;t believe in a personal God, he called the genius behind the universe &#8220;an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.&#8221;[20]
************




Atheist Christopher Hitchens, who spent much of his life writing and debating against God, was most perplexed by the fact that life couldn&#8217;t exist if things were different by just &#8220;one degree or one hair.&#8221; [21]

Davies acknowledges,

There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all. It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature&#8217;s numbers to make the Universe&#8230;. The impression of design is overwhelming. [22]

*


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Yes, but weight is a unit for force, while mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object. An ounce if silver has a particular mass (on earth, at sea level), which will not change with gravitational pull in other locations.
> 
> Weight is usually expressed in kilograms or pounds, while mass is expressed in newtons.
> 
> 1 kilogram (~2.2 pounds) = 9.81 newtons
> 
> If an object has a mass of 9.81 newtons then it will have a mass of 9.81 newtons anywhere in the universe, but its weight will vary by gravitational pull.


What does that have to do with an ounce, which you readily admit changes with gravitational pull? I never spoke about mass except in the instance of the mass of the Earth changing due to removal of material. Why do you keep going on about mass? Is it to ignore the reality that something we call a "constant" might not be constant!

What effect does gravity have on radio isotope decay? What about distance from the sun?

You seem unable to recognize the possibility of possibilities, so this will go nowhere.


----------



## thericeguy

farmr, ever seen this? I stand by my assertion that science proves the existence of God rather than denying it. 

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F0-NPPIeeRk&feature=youtu.be[/ame]


----------



## thericeguy

And for the record, go back and read carefully. You will not find me saying this or that theory is wrong. You will find a consistent message saying you, me, we, should question the results because the inputs contain unknowns. I asked you only to keep an open mind, if you will. We see how that went.


----------



## farmrbrown

No, I never have..........until now.
*Pretty cool.*


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Now you're just being an immature, sniveling little @&%#@$$.


You get what you give. It was fun for me. Did you assume my Christian faith would have me roll over when you pounce, all meek and mild? You should read about David and Goliath.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Farmr: an interesting read, thanks. Right now my mind is far too tired to read about C14 and understand it. I definitely entertain the idea that there is a creator, or supreme being, or something out there. If there is, he doesn't seem very interested in human life, or maybe he is and just lets bad stuff happen. I'm not too worried about know which one is the right one. Maybe none of them are the correct one? Maybe the Zeus of old was actually the "right" God! I find the science behind evolution to be pretty solid. It's generally accepted by most sciences. It would take a huge amount of evidence to unroot it. 
But in our billions of years, the laws of large numbers are such that indeed, maybe something as incredibly unlikely as life springing from nothing is actually plausible. I find it just as plausible as a massively powerful entity creating everything in one fell swoop.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> What effect does gravity have on radio isotope decay? What about distance from the sun?


OK, how does that happen? Go ahead and convince me.


----------



## farmrbrown

It pays to keep an open mind and realize there is much about this universe our minds cannot know.
The main point that struck me was recalling the laws of physics I learned, one of which is the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.
For the science community to conclude that all we see came from "nothing", in a moment, contradicts the scientific foundations they base everything else on.:shrug:

At the very least it makes both sides on equal footing. Believing something to be true, based on incredible beginnings and seemingly illogical and unscientific foundations.
In the end, hard self examination isn't necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## thericeguy

farmrbrown said:


> It pays to keep an open mind and realize there is much about this universe our minds cannot know.
> The main point that struck me was recalling the laws of physics I learned, one of which is the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.
> For the science community to conclude that all we see came from "nothing", in a moment, contradicts the scientific foundations they base everything else on.:shrug:
> 
> At the very least it makes both sides on equal footing. Believing something to be true, based on incredible beginnings and seemingly illogical and unscientific foundations.
> In the end, hard self examination isn't necessarily a bad thing.


I would have to agree. We see what we see today. It is measurable and traceable. We can document it and study it. I have a problem when what we see today gets extrapolated to a billion years ago, when noone was around to see or measure anything, and it gets pumped out as scientific fact. Sticking the word science on some guess does not impress me. I dont care how many chalkboards you used to guess.


----------



## Heritagefarm

deleted because it's not worth it.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Heritagefarm said:


> deleted because it's not worth it.


They say if you don't feed them....


----------



## Clem

thericeguy said:


> Still hung up on answers and unable to ponder ways of thinking I see. You dont make your living as a scientist do you? Tell me you run linux boxes for a living, and I hope network security is someone elses job.


Actually, Nevada *is* a scientist. Engineer, if my memory serves me correctly. Retired.


----------



## AmericanStand

Nevada said:


> Radioactive decay being constant is scientifically reproducible. In fact there's never been an exception. This is as reliable as the idea that water flows downhill. You have no rational reason to question it.



Um no it's not. 
Today under current conditions it is but there is not and never will be a way to see if it has been constant for the last million years. 
Lol talk about your long term study!


----------



## AmericanStand

There are many things that have a "spot" one or more areas that are accelerated or critical as compared to others.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Clem said:


> Actually, Nevada *is* a scientist. Engineer, if my memory serves me correctly. Retired.


An engineer is not a scientist. I'm married to an (electrical) engineer who is the son of a scientist. Two different creatures altogether.


----------



## thericeguy

basketti said:


> An engineer is not a scientist. I'm married to an (electrical) engineer who is the son of a scientist. Two different creatures altogether.


You might be suprised what passes for a scientist in this brave new world.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

But I did stay in a Holiday Inn once.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

thericeguy said:


> You might be suprised what passes for a scientist in this brave new world.


Ask hubby if he remembers a ryme to help remember the values for the color bands on resistors. Which includes violet gives willingly.


----------



## thericeguy

^^^^^ *points to that other person*


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Yep my bad, that was supposed to be for Basketti. I'm using a phone at work.


----------



## Lisa in WA

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Yep my bad, that was supposed to be for Basketti. I'm using a phone at work.


He doesn't remember using that particular one but knows what it was for. 

Funny, the only mnemonic device I can actually remember is from 10th grade Biology: King Phillip Came Over From Germany Sailing.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

basketti said:


> He doesn't remember using that particular one but knows what it was for.
> 
> Funny, the only mnemonic device I can actually remember is from 10th grade Biology: King Phillip Came Over From Germany Sailing.


It worked after more than 35 yrs. Since learning it, it has stuck.


----------



## Lisa in WA

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> It worked after more than 35 yrs. Since learning it, it has stuck.


I looked it up...if would be pretty memorable. Politically incorrect as heck, but memorable.


----------



## wr

If you'd like the thread to remain open, keep your comments focused on the subject rather than making it personal.


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> Um no it's not.
> Today under current conditions it is but there is not and never will be a way to see if it has been constant for the last million years.
> Lol talk about your long term study!


Does that make you believe it wasn't the same back then? Do you have any proof for something that would cause radioisotopes to behave differently?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Irish Pixie said:


> They say if you don't feed them....


I am going to stop feeding this one.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Heritagefarm said:


> I am going to stop feeding this one.


That's often a good option


----------



## Clem

basketti said:


> An engineer is not a scientist. I'm married to an (electrical) engineer who is the son of a scientist. Two different creatures altogether.


Mama, is that you? Correcting me from beyond the grave?? 

Just kidding. I was surprised to find that out. However, since my post quotes a post that was deleted, my post should be deleted for "quoting a deleted post" Then your post should be deleted for "quoting a deleted post" Then, of course, this post should be deleted for "quoting a deleted post" Nobody will ever know that I was once wrong. 

Thus I remain infallible. It's good to be king.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> No assumptions about what gravity is today. Who measured and tested it 10,000 years ago to compare to today to see if the constant is constant?


Mea culpa, I was thinking short term.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes, but for as many instances science made a fool of itself, I can show an example where religion made a fool of itself. Neither ideology has all the answers.


Depends on how you define religion. If you are talking about man created denominations with man made rules then I'd agree wholeheartedly. There are many such religions today and several of them claim to be followers of Christ.

BTW, if you define religion as a belief system built on accepting the tenets of the religion based on faith you have to include some scientific areas. You could even make an argument for all areas.




Heritagefarm said:


> The main difference is that good science never claims to have all the answers in the first place.


So you are willing to admit that macroevolution could be completely wrong? If so then why do most people refuse to say they have no idea how a single cell critter became a dog and it could very have been as a result of an "unnatural" intervention?





Heritagefarm said:


> Fortunately, that doesn't stop us from making a best guess and landing someone on the moon. many of these assumptions have other things backing them up as well. They're "educated guesses," sort of like when you judge whether or not someone is worthy of assistance. It's an educated assumption.


The last time I checked the moon was not in deep space. Unless things have changed drastically it is within the Earth's gravity well. 

But I will admit the my guesses on who is worthy of assistance are just that most scientist will not admit they are just guessing. Try to convince someone who has spent 30+ years of his life studying the expansion of the universe that everything he "knows" are nothing but a series of guesses linked together. Ditto for anyone who has been studying evolution.




Heritagefarm said:


> It's not possible to measure a half life for millions of years - any more than it's possible to go back in time and watch God create the universe.


Which goes to show that both are based on FAITH. My religion is Christianity and its based on my faith that God created the universe. Your religion seems to be science and its based on your faith that something which violated the laws of nature as we know them (it had to create energy and/or matter from nothing) made the universe but it wasn't God.




Heritagefarm said:


> Do you have a link for this "black sheep event?"


In this case wiki can be your friend. A bit more research will show you the amount of U235 decreases much faster than 1/2 every 703,800,000. As I said it leaves behind other elements but it should cause you to wonder what else might be going on we have no idea about. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor




Heritagefarm said:


> Sure, gravity is real. That's obvious. What is far less obvious is what causes it. Gravity keeps you stuck to the earth. Why? There are no magic fairies attached to your shoes. So we have a theory for gravity.


Really? I have never read about a theory for gravity. What does the theory say causes it?


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Why can gravity be observed any better than carbon dating?


Yes. One reason is because there has never been a proven event where gravity did not act as expected. The same can NOT be said about C14 dating.

If you have observed nothing but white swans you can make the statement all swans are white. But as soon as someone finds a black swan your statement has been proven false and as a scientist you would stop saying it. 

If you have observed that C14 dating has worked for many things you can say C14 is a way to date. But as soon as someone finds ANYTHING which C14 dating does not work on you, as a scientist should stop relying on it. 

Black swans have been found and something has been found showing C14 dating doesn't work for it.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Not today's variables, today's laws of physics.
> 
> You make the novel claim that the laws of physics haven't been constant through time. When and how to the laws of physics change, and what makes it happen? Can you demonstrate this in a lab?
> 
> You make a novel claim that flies in the face of the scientific community, which has backed its laws & theories with evidence and demonstration. If you make a claim to the contrary the burden of proof is on you. You can't shift the burden of proof away from yourself by suggesting that your claim can't be disproved. If you expect to overturn accepted theory you'll need to defend it.


He's doing what all scientist do, he is questioning the statement put forward. Its up to those making a statement to prove it using proper, accepted scientific methods.

If you claim to have developed a perpetual motion machine and someone said "That's impossible." its not up them to prove they cannot build one, its up to you to prove you can.

If you are saying at one time a bird used to be a snake its up to you to provide the proof. Not guesses, not pointing out how a bird can grow a thicker beak and use that as "proof" that eventually it will change its DNA to grow scales.

I have said for years macroevolution should be fairly easy to prove. You take an organism with a very short life span and put it in a very harsh environment and expose it to near lethal doses of radiation. In a decade or two you should have a different species.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher, ty for defending me, but I am beat down to the point I dont care anymore. I have gone to great lengths to provide frame of reference ideas so that others can understand what I was trying to express. What did I get? You babble, ramble, and make no sense. 

I tried to talk to people not about test tesults, but about test methods. Insulted and ridiculed. 

I tried to treat reasonable people reasonably. End result, beat up. 

I just dont care now. They csn do it any way they want.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> Yes. One reason is because there has never been a proven event where gravity did not act as expected. The same can NOT be said about C14 dating.
> 
> If you have observed nothing but white swans you can make the statement all swans are white. But as soon as someone finds a black swan your statement has been proven false and as a scientist you would stop saying it.
> 
> If you have observed that C14 dating has worked for many things you can say C14 is a way to date. But as soon as someone finds ANYTHING which C14 dating does not work on you, as a scientist should stop relying on it.
> 
> Black swans have been found and something has been found showing C14 dating doesn't work for it.


That's all well and good, but do you have a link to the "black swan" event for C14? The link below you provided is for reactors. Radioactive materials do indeed behave differently in refractors than in the "wild," but this is due entirely to the fact that they're being subjected to unnatural conditions. (I'm fairly confident we can qualify nuclear reactors as an unnatural thing.)



watcher said:


> Depends on how you define religion. If you are talking about man created denominations with man made rules then I'd agree wholeheartedly. There are many such religions today and several of them claim to be followers of Christ.
> 
> BTW, if you define religion as a belief system built on accepting the tenets of the religion based on faith you have to include some scientific areas. You could even make an argument for all areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are willing to admit that macroevolution could be completely wrong? If so then why do most people refuse to say they have no idea how a single cell critter became a dog and it could very have been as a result of an "unnatural" intervention?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I checked the moon was not in deep space. Unless things have changed drastically it is within the Earth's gravity well.
> 
> But I will admit the my guesses on who is worthy of assistance are just that most scientist will not admit they are just guessing. Try to convince someone who has spent 30+ years of his life studying the expansion of the universe that everything he "knows" are nothing but a series of guesses linked together. Ditto for anyone who has been studying evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Which goes to show that both are based on FAITH. My religion is Christianity and its based on my faith that God created the universe. Your religion seems to be science and its based on your faith that something which violated the laws of nature as we know them (it had to create energy and/or matter from nothing) made the universe but it wasn't God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case wiki can be your friend. A bit more research will show you the amount of U235 decreases much faster than 1/2 every 703,800,000. As I said it leaves behind other elements but it should cause you to wonder what else might be going on we have no idea about.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I have never read about a theory for gravity. What does the theory say causes it?


You don't really need to bring up arguments for whether or not I believe something could be wrong. Of course macroevolution could be wrong. I'm not so hotheaded I'm going to blindly believe it without some evidence, though. True, the evidence requires some insight, and to be honest I haven't studied it much. I personally find the idea that an animal will evolve rapidly under certain circumstances somewhat suspect. 

However, I find many things suspect. Are you aware that I was once a climate change skeptic? After careful observation of both sides of the argument and an intensive overview of data and studies involving hundreds of hours in front of a computer monitor, I was forced to conclude that AGW skeptics are in the wrong. But that's a different issue, I'm just using it as an example.

I take leave of your insinuation that my religion is science. That is incorrect. My religion is very close to Buddist spirituality, the religion of 'finding oneself." It is quite different from Christianity, which involves finding God. No, I do not consider it selfish, only a different approach. It really doesn't matter to me where we came from and it also doesn't matter to me what you believe. I still think I'm right. 

And yes, I believe science requires some faith. It takes faith to drive to the store and hope you don't get shot, run into, struck by a meteorite, or the world doesn't end.

Now, as for gravity, one of my favorite topics. First, your moon statement. It's not just the earth's gravity. The moon's motion also keeps it in orbit. If it weren't for the fact that the moon is going in a certain direction, I.e. stationary, the moon would simply plummet into the earth. So, it's not just gravity, it's kinetics and probably some other fancy words I don't know.

Now, gravity is not a theory. It's pretty obvious it exists. What's not so obvious is WHY it exists. We have two major working theories that I know of; both of which are regarded as mostly true. Newton's theory has something to do with math and some even fancier math that I can't describe. Then there's Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has to due with spacettime. (Watch Interstallar) Then there's special relativity, which is different still, and then a whole lot of additions and fixes and whathaveyou. Most people use Newton's theory because it's simpler and produces similar results for most purposes.

The point is, even for something as basic as gravity, we're still not 100% sure what causes it. We could have, a long time ago, just said "gravity is here to stay, leave it alone, stop explaining it, probably has something to do with God." But we didn't, and we wound up with GPS. 

Science is cool because it progresses. Religion doesn't.


----------



## Shine

Wonder if the universe is cyclical? Wonder if we are in a giant 3-D frying pan, going through cycles such as the big crunch leading to a big bang leading to a big crunch until at one point, the big band was sufficient to cast all the matter at such a velocity so as that there will never be another big crunch? That would seem to go against physics as if the original amount of matter caused "X" detonation with the power to hurl matter to a certain distance, might not some of the original matter have been lost leading to a diminishing cycle of "bangs" and the end reality is a singularity without the capability to explode?

What is life then? Who gets a pass?


----------



## AmericanStand

Heritagefarm said:


> Does that make you believe it wasn't the same back then? Do you have any proof for something that would cause radioisotopes to behave differently?



It's not that I think things might have been different back then. 

It's that I think things MAY be different AT SOME POINT. 

Think of a mile long distribution curve. We have the ability to examine one inch. 
What if it's a bell curve? What if it actually has multiple axis ?


----------



## thericeguy

Americanstand, I want to point out that someone is trying to confuse you in a very subtle way by suggesting that the altered decay foung in a reactor does not "count" because it is "unnatural". 

I think they are hoping you do not realize a reactor cannot create conditions that cannot be created outside a reactor. Reactors do not contain 5th dimensions or space time warps. 

All they are really saying is that if the conditions a reaction takes place in are altered, so are the results. We observe this scientifically by measuring output changes as we vary temperature or pressure, for example. These additions of energy into the equation effect the rate at which the process moves forward. 

I wonder what the conditions were a billion years ago or who might be able to answer that. A sound scientific principle; alter the input and you alter the output. Do not let them convince you 9th grade science was wrong.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Heritagefarm said:


> That's all well and good, but do you have a link to the "black swan" event for C14? The link below you provided is for reactors. Radioactive materials do indeed behave differently in refractors than in the "wild," but this is due entirely to the fact that they're being subjected to unnatural conditions. (I'm fairly confident we can qualify nuclear reactors as an unnatural thing.)
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really need to bring up arguments for whether or not I believe something could be wrong. Of course macroevolution could be wrong. I'm not so hotheaded I'm going to blindly believe it without some evidence, though. True, the evidence requires some insight, and to be honest I haven't studied it much. I personally find the idea that an animal will evolve rapidly under certain circumstances somewhat suspect.
> 
> However, I find many things suspect. Are you aware that I was once a climate change skeptic? After careful observation of both sides of the argument and an intensive overview of data and studies involving hundreds of hours in front of a computer monitor, I was forced to conclude that AGW skeptics are in the wrong. But that's a different issue, I'm just using it as an example.
> 
> I take leave of your insinuation that my religion is science. That is incorrect. My religion is very close to Buddist spirituality, the religion of 'finding oneself." It is quite different from Christianity, which involves finding God. No, I do not consider it selfish, only a different approach. It really doesn't matter to me where we came from and it also doesn't matter to me what you believe. I still think I'm right.
> 
> And yes, I believe science requires some faith. It takes faith to drive to the store and hope you don't get shot, run into, struck by a meteorite, or the world doesn't end.
> 
> Now, as for gravity, one of my favorite topics. First, your moon statement. It's not just the earth's gravity. The moon's motion also keeps it in orbit. If it weren't for the fact that the moon is going in a certain direction, I.e. stationary, the moon would simply plummet into the earth. So, it's not just gravity, it's kinetics and probably some other fancy words I don't know.
> 
> Now, gravity is not a theory. It's pretty obvious it exists. What's not so obvious is WHY it exists. We have two major working theories that I know of; both of which are regarded as mostly true. Newton's theory has something to do with math and some even fancier math that I can't describe. Then there's Einstein's theory of general relativity, which has to due with spacettime. (Watch Interstallar) Then there's special relativity, which is different still, and then a whole lot of additions and fixes and whathaveyou. Most people use Newton's theory because it's simpler and produces similar results for most purposes.
> 
> The point is, even for something as basic as gravity, we're still not 100% sure what causes it. We could have, a long time ago, just said "gravity is here to stay, leave it alone, stop explaining it, probably has something to do with God." But we didn't, and we wound up with GPS.
> 
> Science is cool because it progresses. Religion doesn't.


Religion doesn't progress for the most part, but if you personally participate in ongoing revelation, it sure does.


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Religion doesn't progress for the most part, but if you personally participate in ongoing revelation, it sure does.


What is there to progress? The Bible already contains every reality. Creation. Life. End of life. Eternity. 

Is there supposed to be something past eternity to "progress" to?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

thericeguy said:


> What is there to progress? The Bible already contains every reality. Creation. Life. End of life. Eternity.
> 
> Is there supposed to be something past eternity to "progress" to?


You really believe that everything there is just miraculously stopped when the books of the Bible were canonized.. Life and the issues involved are on going both here and above. God didn't take a hiatus. Lol


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> You really believe that everything there is just miraculously stopped when the books of the Bible were canonized.. Life and the issues involved are on going both here and above. God didn't take a hiatus. Lol


Yup. I really do believe that every answer you will ever need is right there. I do.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Where does it say anywhere thanks my beloved disciples, you're on your own now, see you in a few thousand years? 
Would you say to your wife that you both have been married x amount of years and we have experienced all there is, so we no longer need to talk?


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Where does it say anywhere thanks my beloved disciples, you're on your own now, see you in a few thousand years?
> Would you say to your wife that you both have been married x amount of years and we have experienced all there is, so we no longer need to talk?


Good questions. They are answered in the Bible. Pretty amazing something so old can still apply to an astronaut on the space station. You implying I said any of those things wont make it true. Never said it. Never implied it. Never thought it. 

So lets try this another way since your feathers appear to be ruffled for reasons that baffle me, tell me something you progress thru revelations.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

No feathers ruffled here. 
I never implied you said anything, I was giving an example is all. 
How about "I am with you always"


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> No feathers ruffled here.
> I never implied you said anything, I was giving an example is all.
> How about "I am with you always"


I do not see why you have interpretted my words to mean Jesus is not active in the universe. I have stated quite the opposite in recent days. My personal view is that the very stars would fall from the sky if He were not actively holding them in place. 

You said religion does not progress. I said there is nothing to progress in religion, at least not one based on the Bible. The Bible already contains all history, even that which had not happened yet. What could be added?


----------



## Heritagefarm

Shine said:


> Wonder if the universe is cyclical? Wonder if we are in a giant 3-D frying pan, going through cycles such as the big crunch leading to a big bang leading to a big crunch until at one point, the big band was sufficient to cast all the matter at such a velocity so as that there will never be another big crunch? That would seem to go against physics as if the original amount of matter caused "X" detonation with the power to hurl matter to a certain distance, might not some of the original matter have been lost leading to a diminishing cycle of "bangs" and the end reality is a singularity without the capability to explode?
> 
> What is life then? Who gets a pass?


Well, I think Hindism believes the universe is cyclical. Just one gigantic wheel of time, turning into infinity, and everything that has happened, will happen again. Kind of depressing to think, actually. 
For the most part though, we believe time to be (mostly) linear, I.e. always going to one direction, if it can be called a direction at all.
Now, I really have no idea if we'll ever even have a Big Crunch. Does that mean time is infinite, actually, supporting Hindi theory more than anything.
Anyways, very interesting points.



AmericanStand said:


> It's not that I think things might have been different back then.
> 
> It's that I think things MAY be different AT SOME POINT.
> 
> Think of a mile long distribution curve. We have the ability to examine one inch.
> What if it's a bell curve? What if it actually has multiple axis ?


They may very well have been different at some point. But once the Big Bang occured, it's pretty safe to say the laws of physics have been constant. 

Anyways, despite the laws of physics probably being the same, there could be errors within how radiometric dating is actually performed, and their may be artifacts (built-in errors) within the technique. Here is a detailed explanation of why this dating method may not work:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

While we're on dating methods, I simply don't think ANY of these methods would work well for pickup lines. 



WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Religion doesn't progress for the most part, but if you personally participate in ongoing revelation, it sure does.


Religion cannot progress by default, IMO, but people can certainly use it for personal progression. Further, IMHO people can use anything for personal progression - it just takes trying.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

The Christ and many others are very active. But if people that practice "religion" and just wait around for that red heifer, hoping something will happen some day that is not progression. On the other hand someone that practices an ongoing dialog with God or the Christ, that IS progression. Just because one store doesn't carry an item, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I continue to speak with God, sometimes over trivial things. Sometimes He answers sometimes He doesn't. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no.
Sometimes I get the answer without hearing anything. The point being, I there are a lot of things going on, don't limit your understanding. Continue to seek Him and ongoing knowledge. Don't take for granted that everything on earth and the heavens is in the Bible... It isn't.


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> The Christ and many others are very active. But if people that practice "religion" and just wait around for that red heifer, hoping something will happen some day that is not progression. On the other hand someone that practices an ongoing dialog with God or the Christ, that IS progression. Just because one store doesn't carry an item, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I continue to speak with God, sometimes over trivial things. Sometimes He answers sometimes He doesn't. Sometimes the answer is yes, sometimes no.
> Sometimes I get the answer without hearing anything. The point being, I there are a lot of things going on, don't limit your understanding. Continue to seek Him and ongoing knowledge. Don't take for granted that everything on earth and the heavens is in the Bible... It isn't.


I disagree, and thats OK. I think the disagreement is in word usage, not fundamentals. Your answers, reality, awareness do not change the Bible. It will remain the same Bible, and me reading it might yields a radically different yet equally correct meaning. The Living Word. It's personal and global at the same time. Neat, huh?


----------



## thericeguy

Hmmm, when you say "and many others", perhaps it is a fundamental difference.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

I'm just discussing not attacking here. How can you say "the living Word" in one way, but then say everything that has happened is in the Bible. There is nothing for today unless you interpret something that was said to someone who was alive thousands of years ago means the same for you today.


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I'm just discussing not attacking here. How can you say "the living Word" in one way, but then say everything that has happened is in the Bible. There is nothing for today unless you interpret something that was said to someone who was alive thousands of years ago means the same for you today.


Because the words do not change. Your interpretation of them does via the Holy Spirit.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

thericeguy said:


> Hmmm, when you say "and many others", perhaps it is a fundamental difference.


I believe so, and that's OK. 
There are many entities in the other world, some good, some bad. Some are who we should be fighting on a daily basis.. Eph. 6 maybe?


----------



## Txsteader

thericeguy said:


> Because the words do not change. Your interpretation of them does via the Holy Spirit.


If I may......


> Because the words do not change. Your *understanding* of them does via the Holy Spirit.


IMHO, interpreting is where we get into trouble. If we all learned to listen to the Holy Spirit, we'd all have the same understanding. IOW, we receive God's 'interpretation' as opposed to our own.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> I disagree, and thats OK.


You have to disagree. I understand that you have no choice. To you the Bible has to be correct, because a single flaw in the Bible would put the entire work into question. No matter what is learned about our surroundings you'll need to interpret the Bible as being correct.

As astounding as that frame of mind might be, you're not alone. In fact 2/3rds of Americans have said they would reject scientific discoveries that are in conflict with the Bible. That's a huge number, much higher than those in Europe.

But science is not evil. The difference is that science is open to new and different ideas. Scientists are willing to change their view of how things work. The only ask one thing; that you prove your new ideas through observations and experimentation -- not scripture.

Religion can't accept that the Bible is wrong. If you open religion to being mistaken about something then the entire idea of religion falls flat on its face. You can't allow that to happen.

So we play word games with the claims of the Bible. Regardless of what it is, the words can be twisted to seem reasonable, and even correct. Can you turn water into wine? Can Jesus walk on water? I don't doubt that you can explain both away, although we know in our hearts that neither is true.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

If you could could only see the things I have, few things are set in stone. There are temporal laws and spiritual laws, the spiritual laws are the ones universal.


----------



## thericeguy

Txsteader said:


> If I may......
> 
> 
> IMHO, interpreting is where we get into trouble. If we all learned to listen to the Holy Spirit, we'd all have the same understanding. IOW, we receive God's 'interpretation' as opposed to our own.


I would agree with that. I try not to split hairs.


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> If you could could only see the things I have, few things are set in stone. There are temporal laws and spiritual laws, the spiritual laws are the ones universal.


That is your reality revealed to you by God because it fulfills His purpose for you.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

That's part of everyone's reality, some just don't know of it. Or choose not to accept it in the physical life.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Ego can be ones worst enemy.


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> If you could could only see the things I have, few things are set in stone. There are temporal laws and spiritual laws, the spiritual laws are the ones universal.





WolfWalksSoftly said:


> Ego can be ones worst enemy.


Tell me about it.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Lol, I'm not going to set myself up for ridicule on a public forum. If you would like you can pm me. I'm not looking to start a following everyone has their own journey to work out.


----------



## thericeguy

I think that I assumed, and probably incorrectly, that your reference to religion was traditional Christian based.

If one follows a self enlightenment spiritual awareness path, then that religion does progress as the individual progresses in awareness. That is because the religion and the individual are the same. 

And showing you that you are human and have moments of ego is not ridiculing you or setting you up for anything. 

It appears we have different fundamentals so we yield different answers. Thats fine. I truly hope it makes you happy.


----------



## Nevada

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> If you could could only see the things I have


Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some in such an undeniable manner, while not revealing himself at all to others?


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Not one Religion teaches the fullness. All western religions are based on one sentence in Scripture and most got it all wrong a few got part of it. 
"Whom do men say that I am?
The rock wasn't Peter.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

Nevada said:


> Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some in such an undeniable manner, while not revealing himself at all to others?


Beats me. I guess one has to ask and then accept.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

I don't understand a lot of Quantum Physics or advanced math, some people do.I understand that math is perfect, that all the planets, stars and moons are perfect. I can't explain math equations.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some in such an undeniable manner, while not revealing himself at all to others?


He does reveal Himself to all. Some reject. Are you telling me you have never heard of Jesus or the Bible?


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> I don't understand a lot of Quantum Physics or advanced math, some people do.I understand that math is perfect, that all the planets, stars and moons are perfect. I can't explain math equations.


What is 5 divided by 0?

Why is .99999 repeating to infinity equal to 1?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> What is 5 divided by 0?


It depends on when you do it.



thericeguy said:


> Why is .99999 repeating to infinity equal to 1?


It's not. Fooling with infinity in that manner will get you into trouble with higher math.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> He does reveal Himself to all. Some reject. Are you telling me you have never heard of Jesus or the Bible?


I was forced to attend Sunday school when I was a kid, and was given no choice in confirmation in middle school. Jesus & the Bible were something we talked about, but I never had a religious experience where I was left with undeniable proof of God's existence. Some people claim that they have.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

thericeguy said:


> What is 5 divided by 0?
> 
> Why is .99999 repeating to infinity equal to 1?[/QUOTE
> Why does Ego like to control?


----------



## thericeguy

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> thericeguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is 5 divided by 0?
> 
> Why is .99999 repeating to infinity equal to 1?[/QUOTE
> Why does Ego like to control?
> 
> 
> 
> High school math is not about ego. It is anout math. You proclaimed it as perfect. I presented evidence it is not. Undeniable evidence at that.
> 
> So something that you believed to be perfect minutes ago is no longer perfect. This, potentially, should give rise to inner struggle for exactly what truth is, but maybe you are not the philosophical type.
Click to expand...


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> It depends on when you do it.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not. Fooling with infinity in that manner will get you into trouble with higher math.


Ok, how about you do it now. Solve that grade school math problem. 

So higher math does not rely on fundamental math principles?

The real problem, IMO, is that the human brain cannot comprehend "nothing" or "everything". That is mathematically represented by 0 and infinity. Why? It lies outside the humsn experience. 

So to make math work, we have to apply patches outside the normal ruleset to accomodate our lack of understanding. 

Btw, I know a book that talks about nothing and everything.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

You are all about your Ego and the lack of its understanding. I knew when you didn't pm me you were playing games, play with somebody else.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> I was forced to attend Sunday school when I was a kid, and was given no choice in confirmation in middle school. Jesus & the Bible were something we talked about, but I never had a religious experience where I was left with undeniable proof of God's existence. Some people claim that they have.


I am sorry for that in more way than one. I cannot answer the question "why not me" for you.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> You have to disagree. I understand that you have no choice. To you the Bible has to be correct, because a single flaw in the Bible would put the entire work into question. No matter what is learned about our surroundings you'll need to interpret the Bible as being correct.
> 
> As astounding as that frame of mind might be, you're not alone. In fact 2/3rds of Americans have said they would reject scientific discoveries that are in conflict with the Bible. That's a huge number, much higher than those in Europe.
> 
> But science is not evil. The difference is that science is open to new and different ideas. Scientists are willing to change their view of how things work. The only ask one thing; that you prove your new ideas through observations and experimentation -- not scripture.
> 
> Religion can't accept that the Bible is wrong. If you open religion to being mistaken about something then the entire idea of religion falls flat on its face. You can't allow that to happen.
> 
> So we play word games with the claims of the Bible. Regardless of what it is, the words can be twisted to seem reasonable, and even correct. Can you turn water into wine? Can Jesus walk on water? I don't doubt that you can explain both away, although we know in our hearts that neither is true.


AND THAT, is why it's so difficult to for many religious people to accept that things may not be as they are.

In my mind, not knowing all the answers is great. I will probably be searching for answers all my life. In my opinion, Christianity encourages moral stagnation because the Bible purports to have all the answers. True, actually searching for the answers requires some effort, but the answers are all, supposedly, right there.

But if life is a journey, we cannot know all the answers. The journey is, therefore, the destination.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> AND THAT, is why it's so difficult to for many religious people to accept that things may not be as they are.
> 
> In my mind, not knowing all the answers is great. I will probably be searching for answers all my life. In my opinion, Christianity encourages moral stagnation because the Bible purports to have all the answers. True, actually searching for the answers requires some effort, but the answers are all, supposedly, right there.
> 
> But if life is a journey, we cannot know all the answers. The journey is, therefore, the destination.


When presented with high school math, who stomped off unable to rectify the facts before them? A self enlightened person or a Christian? I'd say you guys dont have a lock of this truth thing.


----------



## Heritagefarm

WolfWalksSoftly said:


> You are all about your Ego and the lack of its understanding. I knew when you didn't pm me you were playing games, play with somebody else.


Indeed.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> When presented with high school math, who stomped off unable to rectify the facts before them? A self enlightened person or a Christian? I'd say you guys dont have a lock of this truth thing.


I'm willing to have a normal, insult free conversation. Are you?


----------



## thericeguy

Ansolutely. If I start to drift, feel free to smack. I will be starting dinner somewhat soon.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Ok, how about you do it now. Solve that grade school math problem.


There is an entire branch of mathematics based on the idea of dividing by zero, called calculus. But to do it zero must remain a variable until the equation can be rearranged in a way that the zero variable can be canceled. Once the zero variable the equation is gone it can be solved, yielding instantaneous (zero) results. You can solve practical problems with calculus that can't be solved by algebra or basic arithmetic.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> There is an entire branch of mathematics based on the idea of dividing by zero, called calculus. But to do it zero must remain a variable until the equation can be rearranged in a way that the zero variable can be canceled. Once the zero variable the equation is gone it can be solved, yielding instantaneous (zero) results. You can solve practical problems with calculus that can't be solved by algebra or basic arithmetic.


Would you please show me a link to the mathematical proof? In my 8 hours of calculus, we never covered such a topic. Perhaps I will learn something new.


----------



## thericeguy

I just texted my cousin who holds 2 math degrees. I cannot copy paste it, but will type it word for word. 

Does calculus hold an answer for 5 / 0?

Only as a limit, approaching infinity from the right and left. 

So Is it still undefined? Or does higher math hold a real answer of 0?

Undefined.

For those following other threads, same cousin who adopted. Shame his genes will not persist. I find him brilliant and a fine human being.


----------



## thericeguy

I just reread. Calculus is based on dividing by 0. LOL. I seriously had to laugh.


----------



## thericeguy

The text conversation continued at his choice. 

1/0 and 1/infinity do play major roles in the study of integral calculus. 

Dont want to explode my brain. I asseet that no human can fully comprehend 0 or infinity. It lies outside human experience. This is why we struggle with it in sciences like math, and must study the concept "near" it. 

Near or aproaching is correct. Zero we all grasp as things like 1/x as x approaches 0 or infinity, where the journey begins. 

Right

Just saying I grasp zero everyday as my bank account approaches 0. (He owns an oilfield company. Nuff said)

LOL. I mean 0 as in nothing. No space. No time. Nothing. 

Right. You wont find that on a number line.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> I just reread. Calculus is based on dividing by 0. LOL. I seriously had to laugh.


Maybe following along with this posted math question will help.

_We are not sidestepping the "rule" (that division by zero is undefined) in the sense of violating it in any way. We are finding the LIMIT of a function with h in the denominator as h approaches 0; the limit, by definition, never invokes division by EXACTLY zero._
http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/70599.html

But you are correct that there is no discrete solution to 5/0, at least how it was asked.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> In my 8 hours of calculus, we never covered such a topic.


8 hours? OK, so if they never discussed zero intervals what was covered?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> The text conversation continued at his choice.
> 
> 1/0 and 1/infinity do play major roles in the study of integral calculus.
> 
> Dont want to explode my brain. I asseet that no human can fully comprehend 0 or infinity. It lies outside human experience. This is why we struggle with it in sciences like math, and must study the concept "near" it.
> 
> Near or aproaching is correct. Zero we all grasp as things like 1/x as x approaches 0 or infinity, where the journey begins.
> 
> Right
> 
> Just saying I grasp zero everyday as my bank account approaches 0. (He owns an oilfield company. Nuff said)
> 
> LOL. I mean 0 as in nothing. No space. No time. Nothing.
> 
> Right. You wont find that on a number line.


I interpret 0 as being nothing. Technically, nothing is nothing; darkness, absence. I find it comprehend able. Infinity is harder. Even grasping a billion years is difficult. But it's there, and infinity likely exists, so we may as well accept it.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Maybe following along with this posted math question will help.
> 
> _We are not sidestepping the "rule" (that division by zero is undefined) in the sense of violating it in any way. We are finding the LIMIT of a function with h in the denominator as h approaches 0; the limit, by definition, never invokes division by EXACTLY zero._
> http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/70599.html
> 
> But you are correct that there is no discrete solution to 5/0, at least how it was asked.


If 0 is real, why cant you look it right in the eye? Why must you treat it do differently than 4 or 413? Why does it take such abstract hypothetical thinking when no other number does? Why must we use "near" or "approaching" when no other aside from infinity demands this?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I interpret 0 as being nothing. Technically, nothing is nothing; darkness, absence. I find it comprehend able. Infinity is harder. Even grasping a billion years is difficult. But it's there, and infinity likely exists, so we may as well accept it.


If you are there to comprehend it, how can there be nothing to comprehend? You are there. 

I understand these are deep philosophical questions, but you asked.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> 8 hours? OK, so if they never discussed zero intervals what was covered?


See all that junk said by a mathmetician. Oddly enough, it coincides exactly with what God told me.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> 8 hours? OK, so if they never discussed zero intervals what was covered?


Lame attempt to discredit my education. Sure sign of a weak argument.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> If 0 is real, why cant you look it right in the eye? Why must you treat it do differently than 4 or 413? Why does it take such abstract hypothetical thinking when no other number does? Why must we use "near" or "approaching" when no other aside from infinity demands this?


Because it's the only way to evaluate a zero interval, which has to be done. Besides, it works.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Because it's the only way to evaluate a zero interval, which has to be done. Besides, it works.


Yup. Cant see it. Cant use it. But if you look over there while I do this magic trick. See? Easy peasy. And you call God hard to believe. Zero snd infinity to do not exist to humans because the exist only in the realm of God. Before there was anything, there was God. When there is eternity, there will be God. Thank you for helping prove that truth does not equal Truth. Also a deep philosophical thing.


----------



## thericeguy

I figure you guys are used to some internet response that resembles "omg he used big words. It must be true", but if you want to convince me, you have to try harder.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I interpret 0 as being nothing. Technically, nothing is nothing; darkness, absence. I find it comprehend able. Infinity is harder. Even grasping a billion years is difficult. But it's there, and infinity likely exists, so we may as well accept it.


Btw, techically there can be no darkness. That would be something.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Yup. Cant see it. Cant use it. But if you look over there while I do this magic trick. See? Easy peasy. And you call God hard to believe.


It's not easy. It takes years of study to acquire a working knowledge of calculus. With time you can learn to think in terms of calculus. It's the language of engineers and physical scientists. It's like someone telling you that force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time, and you get a little picture of that in your head.

It was a little more difficult for me because my high school didn't offer any calculus at all. Many kids from larger inner-city high schools had a pretty good head start.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> If you are there to comprehend it, how can there be nothing to comprehend? You are there.
> 
> I understand these are deep philosophical questions, but you asked.





thericeguy said:


> Btw, techically there can be no darkness. That would be something.


"I think, therefore I am." If I can consider that something can simply cease to exist, have I not demonstrated I can comprehend "nothing?" Darkness does indeed exist; it is simply the absence of light. We can, in a lab, also create true vacuums. If there is even no light passing through the vacuum, then there is truly nothing there.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> "I think, therefore I am." If I can consider that something can simply cease to exist, have I not demonstrated I can comprehend "nothing?" Darkness does indeed exist; it is simply the absence of light. We can, in a lab, also create true vacuums. If there is even no light passing through the vacuum, then there is truly nothing there.


What of the lab itself that created those conditions?


----------



## thericeguy

Yes, I am pushing you to explore. It is not about something ceasing to exist. That leaves something. It is about everything ceasing to exist.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> What of the lab itself that created those conditions?





thericeguy said:


> Yes, I am pushing you to explore. It is not about something ceasing to exist. That leaves something. It is about everything ceasing to exist.


I don't understand your question. In our physical world, almost everything just turns into something else. Laws of thermodynamics. Total annihilation of matter, for instance, results in a bunch of barely detectable nutrinos - super low-level energy.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't understand your question. In our physical world, almost everything just turns into something else. Laws of thermodynamics. Total annihilation of matter, for instance, results in a bunch of barely detectable nutrinos - super low-level energy.


We are discussing the concept of nothing and infinity. You said you could conceptualise nothing, then used examples that involved something. On a philosophical absolute, what is nothing?


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some in such an undeniable manner, while not revealing himself at all to others?


The promise is given, that *all* who seek shall find Him. Perhaps some give up too easily. And there's the problem of relinquishing one's will & accepting God's will. My own journey took many years, before I was at was at a point where my heart was broken by circumstances beyond MY control, that I was willing to accept God's will in the matter & in my life. 

That's the day He revealed Himself to me and I became a different person. Not perfect, but striving toward the perfection of Christ. Since that day, life has been more exciting and fulfilling than I could have ever imagined.


----------



## thericeguy

Txsteader said:


> The promise is given, that *all* who seek shall find Him. Perhaps some give up too easily. And there's the problem of relinquishing one's will & accepting God's will. My own journey took many years, before I was at was at a point where my heart was broken by circumstances beyond MY control, that I was willing to accept God's will in the matter & in my life.
> 
> That's the day He revealed Himself to me and I became a different person. Not perfect, but striving toward the perfection of Christ. Since that day, life has been more exciting and fulfilling than I could have ever imagined.


Amen brother


----------



## Txsteader

Nevada said:


> I was forced to attend Sunday school when I was a kid, and was given no choice in confirmation in middle school. Jesus & the Bible were something we talked about, but I never had a religious experience where I was left with undeniable proof of God's existence. Some people claim that they have.


I would encourage you, & anyone who wants to experience that 'undeniable proof' of His existence, to keep seeking. 

I know with every fiber of my being that you will find Him.....and you, too, will be changed forever. He knows the desires of your heart and will not forsake you. 

It's worth the effort.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> See all that junk said by a mathmetician. Oddly enough, it coincides exactly with what God told me.


Which amounts to 0



> Lame attempt to discredit my education. Sure sign of a weak argument.


You've done that quite often and will likely do so again

Ironically that gives you *0 *credibility


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which amounts to 0
> 
> 
> You've done that quite often and will likely do so again
> 
> Ironically that gives you *0 *credibility


Approaching zero is not zero. I am not shocked you do not understand the subtle difference.


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which amounts to 0
> 
> 
> You've done that quite often and will likely do so again
> 
> Ironically that gives you *0 *credibility


Were you afraid your compadres were being confronted with facts they vould not face, so come to turn it into a screaming match? You are good at those. Unlike you, I am sure that Heritage can hold his own. Nevada now, not quite as sure, but maybe. I will know in 24 hrs. Wolf already bailed.


----------



## Miss Kay

Huge thread drift so let me help you get back. I self identify as a scientist or maybe a mathematician! Well maybe not. It would probably be easier for me to pass as a guy than one of those!


----------



## thericeguy

Miss Kay said:


> Huge thread drift so let me help you get back. I self identify as a scientist or maybe a mathematician! Well maybe not. It would probably be easier for me to pass as a guy than one of those!


I understand you do as a certain country song suggests to save a horse. Yes, we seem to drift. But only the way the wind blows.

Noone is interested in this thread. Only reasonsable conversation here, most times.

Yesterdays storm claimed my green tomatoes. I am more jealous of you now.


----------



## WolfWalksSoftly

thericeguy said:


> Were you afraid your compadres were being confronted with facts they vould not face, so come to turn it into a screaming match? You are good at those. Unlike you, I am sure that Heritage can hold his own. Nevada now, not quite as sure, but maybe. I will know in 24 hrs. Wolf already bailed.


I became bored and don't play games, have a happy.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> We are discussing the concept of nothing and infinity. You said you could conceptualise nothing, then used examples that involved something. On a philosophical absolute, what is nothing?


I'm not much of a philosophy. I consider myself a much better scientist than philosopher. I have to be in the right "groove" to do philosophy. 
Scientifically, nothing is pretty reasonable. It's no existence. There are 0 dragons in the world. That's reasonable.


----------



## coolrunnin

Lol not true, we have dragons just not any fire breathing flying variety.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150426-ten-amazing-real-life-dragons


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm not much of a philosophy. I consider myself a much better scientist than philosopher. I have to be in the right "groove" to do philosophy.
> Scientifically, nothing is pretty reasonable. It's no existence. There are 0 dragons in the world. That's reasonable.


Yes, but that leaves the world the dragons are not in. Do not fret. You cannot comprehend absolute nothing. Noone can. How can uou ponder its existence without existing? So lets move past that for now and ask a simpler question. If nothing existed ever, it had to be before the big bang. Could we agree upon that statement? If not, explain.


----------



## Heritagefarm

coolrunnin said:


> Lol not true, we have dragons just not any fire breathing flying variety.
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150426-ten-amazing-real-life-dragons


Ha! Nice. I especially like the flying lizards. I saw a picture of one a while back that had been stylized to look like Toothless from How to Train your Dragon.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Yes, but that leaves the world the dragons are not in. Do not fret. You cannot comprehend absolute nothing. Noone can. How can uou ponder its existence without existing? So lets move past that for now and ask a simpler question. If nothing existed ever, it had to be before the big bang. Could we agree upon that statement? If not, explain.


That is your claim, not mine. I think I can comprehend absolute nothing. It's a cold world, impossibly cold. You can't see this world, for to be in it, to peer inside, would mean it existed and was therefore not nothing. There are no screams heard within, for its endless depths contain nothing, not a single ray of light, of breath, of hope. This world is dead and empty, exhausted of every possible atom, emotion and good thing. It cannot exist for in order to exist, this nothing would have definition, therefore it has no existence. 

As to your last statement, if there was a Big Bang, there must have been something to start with. Maybe it's like Shine said, our Big Bang started from a finished Big Crunch. Take all the matter in the universe and shove it into something the size of a basketball and let it explode again.


----------



## Nevada

Heritagefarm said:


> As to your last statement, if there was a Big Bang, there must have been something to start with. Maybe it's like Shine said, our Big Bang started from a finished Big Crunch. Take all the matter in the universe and shove it into something the size of a basketball and let it explode again.


I'm comfortable with the idea that there are things we don't know enough about.


----------



## thericeguy

Until you can describe absolute nothing, I will stick to my claim. Math has my back on that, but it matters not. 

I am trying very hard, for purity sake, to not put words on you. But you make it difficult when your position is maybe something. That seems to include all possibilities. But even that, no matter. My point will still be valid. 

So all things existed, just scrunched up into a tiny ball, and then BANG, it all went hurtling out. 

Wouldnt all matter in the universe, non life forms, have the same radioactive isotope date? Or did the ball form slowly over time? If so, from what? What was there before the ball was there? Is that nothing?

Heritage, I am not trying to change your mind about anything. Just want you to think. There are people who want to control you. Tell you what is sexy with magazine covers. Tell you what car is cool. What soda to drink. What history is. And how you got here. There are flaws to what they tell you. They wrap it in big words and artist renditions of this or that, hoping you won't notice. But they are there. 

Truth exists for its own sake.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> So all things existed, just scrunched up into a tiny ball, and then BANG, it all went hurtling out.
> .


 Or maybe a magical sky daddy said 'hey, lets get some light in this joint'. The actual evidence we can measure points to the first option, but who really knows. 
'Let there be light' sounds an awful lot like the Big Bang theory, (which should more appropriately be the 'Big Expansion Theory'), so as long as its not taken too literally, Genesis might actually have some allegorical truth to it. Actually the ancient Hindu scriptures have one of the more compelling cosmic origin stories, in that creation is constantly expanding for eons, then collapsing on itself, then expanding again. 
But really, no man knows. We can only observe and make educated guesses. I do know one thing for certain, you really don't have to work insults into every post, it does nothing for your arguments except detract from them.


----------



## Shrek

The best metaphor of life as we know it that I have heard is still a line on The Drew Carey Show years ago.

One of the characters when asked his thoughts on the Universe said he didn't know but felt he was the haki sack in the whole plan that the creator or creators played with on their coffee breaks. :rotfl:


----------



## Heritagefarm

Nevada said:


> I'm comfortable with the idea that there are things we don't know enough about.


Absolutely. I think life would be boring if we knew everything. Although there are plenty who will claim to have all the answers.



thericeguy said:


> Until you can describe absolute nothing, I will stick to my claim. Math has my back on that, but it matters not.
> 
> I am trying very hard, for purity sake, to not put words on you. But you make it difficult when your position is maybe something. That seems to include all possibilities. But even that, no matter. My point will still be valid.
> 
> So all things existed, just scrunched up into a tiny ball, and then BANG, it all went hurtling out.
> 
> Wouldnt all matter in the universe, non life forms, have the same radioactive isotope date? Or did the ball form slowly over time? If so, from what? What was there before the ball was there? Is that nothing?
> 
> Heritage, I am not trying to change your mind about anything. Just want you to think. There are people who want to control you. Tell you what is sexy with magazine covers. Tell you what car is cool. What soda to drink. What history is. And how you got here. There are flaws to what they tell you. They wrap it in big words and artist renditions of this or that, hoping you won't notice. But they are there.
> 
> Truth exists for its own sake.


That's your choice. I really don't see why it matters, but interesting tangent. Perhaps it just requires an active imagination. (That wasn't an insult, by the way. I want to point that out because sometimes you interpetr my words as insulting when they're not.)

IRL, I'm an extremely easy going. I'm water off a duck, maybe we'll do this today, maybe we won't, ceiling fans are neat, clouds are pretty, let's learn Spanish today. While it may seem like I have no position, that's a position in and of itself. It's what agnostics do. There are so many options, they don't want to rule them out. They're a little more polite than atheists, some of whom seem as determined to preach atheism as a preacher screeches evangelism.

People want to control everyone. But since I don't think stereotyped, airbrushed women on magazines are sexy (they are, but not in a good way), I don't drink soda, and I drive a hybrid. Marketing plow? Maybe.


----------



## thericeguy

Well, there are people who ridicule my beliefs. They would claim that I talk to an invisible person due to a mental illness. It is rather commonplace in America, and perhaps the world, to be dismissive of anyone who is a Christian within the context of a factual or scientific debate. The attitude seems to be that Christians cannot participate in a factual debate because they believe in unprovable things. 

The scientific community likes to portray themselves at more enlightened. Above such folly. They are educated. See all my degrees. We have powerful technology. See my lab. 

I assert mankind cannot understand "nothing" because that exists only in the realm of God. It would be the time of preCreation, when there was only God. Yes, I see the paradox in that. If there was God, there was something. True. When I speak of nothing, I refer to the universe which He created from nothing. No space. No time. Nothing. Only God. 

Let us turn to the scientists and see if I can be right and see how we study nothing. Let us consider the simple math equation 5/0. In all their labs with all their computers, after hundreds of years trying, they cannot solve it. And based on at least one reaction, get pretty defensive about it as well. The best they can do is do something else really really close to 5/0 and make a prediction about what 5/0 is based on nearby results. They guess. It may be an educated guess, but by the strict interpretations of science itself, it is a guess since it cannot be observed. 

But the science community is the enlightened ones. I am just some whackadoodle who doesnt use facts. My faith leads me to an understanding of 5/0 that agrees with them. It may even surpass theirs, as my answer is the same as theirs with the bonus that I do not submit to hubris and claim I am capable of knowing all things given sufficient time and lab equipment. I accept that 5/0 is out of my reach. 

Oddly enough, when presented an argument such as this, the people of facts and data blow up. They start pointing at their diplomas, labs, and textbooks on the shelf. I cannot be right. I have not earned the right to be right. I must be silenced, drowned out in a furor of noise, buried in insults and innuendo suggesting that I might be crazy, uneducated, or unable to "understand". This from the people of facts. 

Hmmmm.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Well, there are people who ridicule my beliefs. They would claim that I talk to an invisible person due to a mental illness. It is rather commonplace in America, and perhaps the world, to be dismissive of anyone who is a Christian within the context of a factual or scientific debate. The attitude seems to be that Christians cannot participate in a factual debate because they believe in unprovable things.
> 
> The scientific community likes to portray themselves at more enlightened. Above such folly. They are educated. See all my degrees. We have powerful technology. See my lab.
> 
> I assert mankind cannot understand "nothing" because that exists only in the realm of God. It would be the time of preCreation, when there was only God. Yes, I see the paradox in that. If there was God, there was something. True. When I speak of nothing, I refer to the universe which He created from nothing. No space. No time. Nothing. Only God.
> 
> Let us turn to the scientists and see if I can be right and see how we study nothing. Let us consider the simple math equation 5/0. In all their labs with all their computers, after hundreds of years trying, they cannot solve it. And based on at least one reaction, get pretty defensive about it as well. The best they can do is do something else really really close to 5/0 and make a prediction about what 5/0 is based on nearby results. They guess. It may be an educated guess, but by the strict interpretations of science itself, it is a guess since it cannot be observed.
> 
> But the science community is the enlightened ones. I am just some whackadoodle who doesnt use facts. My faith leads me to an understanding of 5/0 that agrees with them. It may even surpass theirs, as my answer is the same as theirs with the bonus that I do not submit to hubris and claim I am capable of knowing all things given sufficient time and lab equipment. I accept that 5/0 is out of my reach.
> 
> Oddly enough, when presented an argument such as this, the people of facts and data blow up. They start pointing at their diplomas, labs, and textbooks on the shelf. I cannot be right. I have not earned the right to be right. I must be silenced, drowned out in a furor of noise, buried in insults and innuendo suggesting that I might be crazy, uneducated, or unable to "understand". This from the people of facts.
> 
> Hmmmm.


In any debate, going no against the standard accepted, the established, facts and theories requires the burden of proof. Nevada is right in this respect; if you have a claim contrary to established data, it's your job to back it up; not out job to disprove it, although that is frequently what happens (in general). This doesn't mean you're right or wrong, just that maybe you see persecution where there is only skepticism and questioning. 

I disagree that we cannot understand "nothing," which seems to be putting some of our intelligence down. Why can we not comprehend 0?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> In any debate, going no against the standard accepted, the established, facts and theories requires the burden of proof. Nevada is right in this respect; if you have a claim contrary to established data, it's your job to back it up; not out job to disprove it, although that is frequently what happens (in general). This doesn't mean you're right or wrong, just that maybe you see persecution where there is only skepticism and questioning.
> 
> I disagree that we cannot understand "nothing," which seems to be putting some of our intelligence down. Why can we not comprehend 0?


It is standard accepted fact that 5/0 is undefined. That is the answer given to the problem. He disagreed. Not sure your point or how it relates to me. Division by zero creates a horizontal asymptote which goes off the graph. How can you measure what is off the graph? Also the simple proof. 

4/2=2 because 2*2=4. 

5/0=undefined because nothing times 0=5. 

Standard accepted mathematical principles. We have devised ways of dealing with this unsolvable math problem. Those work-arounds do indeed work. Bridges stand up. Buildings stay up. Planes can fly. But you cannot escape the reality that we cannot solve 5/0. 

One member stated that math was perfect. When I showed him it was not (see above), I was accused of playing games. When did showing evidence, easily understood evidence, become a game? 

0 is a concept we can grasp. We can have 0 money, apples, cars, whatever. That is not the same as nothing. It is a question that can only be seen from a philosophical perspectives. A laboratory would do no good in pondering nothing. I suspect that if you ponder a universe of nothing, you see total darkness, no stars, no planets. A void. I suppose this represents a state of nothing to some, maybe even many. 

It does not to me. One has to remove the universe itself to be nothing. Anything less and it is just an empty cookie jar.


----------



## Heritagefarm

I don't really care about your math problem. It's just one anomaly in a world filled with them. You seem to take it as proof that nothing can't exist? I see it as proof of a weird math problem.

If our minds are capable of dreaming up a nothing, a space less, completely empty void, so empty and dead blackness doesn't even exist, then it does exist.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I don't really care about your math problem. It's just one anomaly in a world filled with them. You seem to take it as proof that nothing can't exist? I see it as proof of a weird math problem.
> 
> If our minds are capable of dreaming up a nothing, a space less, completely empty void, so empty and dead blackness doesn't even exist, then it does exist.


But there is a void. To say it exists implies there is time and a void. Now mentally remove the void and time.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Someone desperately needs a mommy group. :whistlin:


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> But there is a void. To say it exists implies there is time and a void. Now mentally remove the void and time.


Well, I said the void didn't even have darkness, which implies the void itself doesn't even exist because if the void existed, it couldn't be nothing. 

Regardless, I fail to the point to this tangent to our tangent.


----------



## thericeguy

The point? Just something I wanted to talk about. Anything you want to talk about?


----------



## AmericanStand

greg273 said:


> Or maybe a magical sky daddy said 'hey, lets get some light in this joint'. The actual evidence we can measure points to the first option, but who really knows.
> .



Umm no it doesn't. 
Every organized system for which we can find a creator has always been created by a higher intellect than the system it's self. 
That evidence would suggest that the universe was created by something more intelligent than nothing.


----------



## thericeguy

Entropy - things tend towards a random state. Energy must be added to a system to maintain order. Wonder where that energy comes from?


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> Umm no it doesn't.
> Every organized system for which we can find a creator has always been created by a higher intellect than the system it's self.
> That evidence would suggest that the universe was created by something more intelligent than nothing.


I'm not opposed to the idea of intelligent design. There's not much physical evidence for it, though. 



thericeguy said:


> Entropy - things tend towards a random state. Energy must be added to a system to maintain order. Wonder where that energy comes from?


Sure, all right. I still like Shine's theory - our Big Bang was from a Big Crunch. In a previous infinite world, everything coelesced into a supermassive black hole and then reexploded. Maybe Doctor Who did it. 
So where do you think the enery came from? If it was the BB, where was the enery - just stuck in some corner of the universe? Or if God did it, did he just whisk matter and enery into being?


----------



## AmericanStand

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm not opposed to the idea of intelligent design. There's not much physical evidence for it, though.
> 
> ?



True but there is some as opposed to none for the Big Bang.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Well, there are people who ridicule my beliefs.


But to be fair, you ridicule my beliefs.

I, on the other hand, have no desire to change your beliefs. If it works for you and makes you fell better to have those beliefs, I have no reason to take that from you. You can also believe or reject whatever science you wish. You'd be wrong, but you can do it if you want to. All I ask is that you don't handicap your kids with misinformation like that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Were you afraid your compadres were being confronted with facts they vould not face, so come to turn it into a screaming match? You are good at those. Unlike you, I am sure that Heritage can hold his own. Nevada now, not quite as sure, but maybe. I will know in 24 hrs. Wolf already bailed.


You're the only one "screaming"

I made an accurate observation, and you're attempting to divert attention from the fact it was true

You complain in one post about something you did yourself in an earlier post.
That's a fact you are trying hard not to face, by making it about everyone else.

Ramble on


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> True but there is some as opposed to none for the Big Bang.


There is evidence for the BB. Cosmic background microwave radiation is a big one.

There's more if you care to check it out:

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid

Neat stuff here.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> But to be fair, you ridicule my beliefs.
> 
> I, on the other hand, have no desire to change your beliefs. If it works for you and makes you fell better to have those beliefs, I have no reason to take that from you. You can also believe or reject whatever science you wish. You'd be wrong, but you can do it if you want to. All I ask is that you don't handicap your kids with misinformation like that.


What did Heritage ssy? If you go against commonly accepted fact... Something like that. You disagree the answer to 5/0 is undefined and there is a discrete answer. I think math disagrees with you. Showed my evidence to dubstantiate my claim. Where is your answer to 5/0 that doesnt end in undefined?


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> Which amounts to 0
> 
> 
> You've done that quite often and will likely do so again
> 
> Ironically that gives you *0 *credibility


Your substantiated fact based claim is "the answer is 0"? The great BFF has solved the unsolvable math question and didnt even need paper. Just pls dont ask how they got the answer. It is a big secret. Probably comes from writing on a mens restroom wall.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

thericeguy said:


> Your substantiated fact based claim is "the answer is 0"? The great BFF has solved the unsolvable math question and didnt even need paper. Just pls dont ask how they got the answer. It is a big secret. Probably comes from writing on a mens restroom wall.


Don't look now, but you're doing it again.



> They start pointing at their diplomas, labs, and textbooks on the shelf


Like you did when you brought up your major, implying you know more?
You just talk in circles :shrug:


----------



## painterswife

thericeguy said:


> Your substantiated fact based claim is "the answer is 0"? The great BFF has solved the unsolvable math question and didnt even need paper. Just pls dont ask how they got the answer. It is a big secret. Probably comes from writing on a mens restroom wall.


Why do you continue to attack the person instead of the post?


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Why do you continue to attack the person instead of the post?


Just a guess, but, I would say that the person, in question, attacked first, as is usual.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Just a guess, but, I would say that the person, in question, attacked first. Plus he was, indeed, wrong. 5/0 is not equal to zero, it is undefined.


Yes, just a guess. If he is or was wrong there is no need to attack the person.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Yes, just a guess. If he is or was wrong there is no need to attack the person.


Actually the Zero comment was about something else and that was an opinion, not "wrong" per say. Most people would see it as an attack, like most of the poster in question's posts.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> That's all well and good, but do you have a link to the "black swan" event for C14?


Below is a link to the abstract. I don't have a subscription to Science so I can't get the entire article but if you search for M. L. Keith, G. M. Anderson and carbon 14 dating I'm sure you'll find more info.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/141/3581/634

_Abstract_
_Evidence is presented to show that modern mollusk shells from rivers can have anomalous radiocarbon ages, owing mainly to incorporation of inactive (carbon-14-deficient) carbon from humus, probably through the food web, as well as by the pathway of carbon dioxide from humus decay. The resultant effect, in addition to the variable contributions of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fermentative carbon dioxide from bottom muds, and, locally, of carbonate carbon from dissolving limestones, makes the initial carbon-14-activity of ancient fresh-water_ 




Heritagefarm said:


> Radioactive materials do indeed behave differently in refractors than in the "wild," but this is due entirely to the fact that they're being subjected to unnatural conditions. (I'm fairly confident we can qualify nuclear reactors as an unnatural thing.)


Another example of you making a bad assumption  I do not qualify ALL nuclear reactors as "unnatural". Here's a wiki link 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor





Heritagefarm said:


> You don't really need to bring up arguments for whether or not I believe something could be wrong. Of course macroevolution could be wrong. I'm not so hotheaded I'm going to blindly believe it without some evidence, though. True, the evidence requires some insight, and to be honest I haven't studied it much. I personally find the idea that an animal will evolve rapidly under certain circumstances somewhat suspect.


But do you question the evidence you are given? Look at the evidence provided for macroevolution. We can force changes in a species through selective breeding therefore science makes the huge leap, with no supporting evidence, to say that if we keep breeding we can force enough changes to make an entirely new species. Would you accept any other theory if it had that kind of supporting evidence?




Heritagefarm said:


> However, I find many things suspect. Are you aware that I was once a climate change skeptic? After careful observation of both sides of the argument and an intensive overview of data and studies involving hundreds of hours in front of a computer monitor, I was forced to conclude that AGW skeptics are in the wrong. But that's a different issue, I'm just using it as an example.



Another thread. Answer me a couple of questions. Is the increase in CO2 a cause or an effect of the warming? Do the computer models work in reverse, i.e. if you put current data and ask it to "predict" the temps from the past are the "predicted" temps the same as the known temps?





Heritagefarm said:


> And yes, I believe science requires some faith. It takes faith to drive to the store and hope you don't get shot, run into, struck by a meteorite, or the world doesn't end.


No, that's not faith because it is based on proven and repeated 'experiments'. Millions of people a day go to the store and don't get shot, you have many neighbors who have made probably thousands of trips to the store and have not been shot, you have gone to the store hundreds of times and have not been shot. Therefore you can reach the logical and scientific conclusion that you will not be shot on the way to the store.

Faith is a belief in something for which there is no real evidence of. 




Heritagefarm said:


> Now, as for gravity, one of my favorite topics. First, your moon statement. It's not just the earth's gravity. The moon's motion also keeps it in orbit. If it weren't for the fact that the moon is going in a certain direction, I.e. stationary, the moon would simply plummet into the earth. So, it's not just gravity, it's kinetics and probably some other fancy words I don't know.


The point was it is in Earth's gravity well and NOT in deep space where we have no idea of what gravity is like.




Heritagefarm said:


> The point is, even for something as basic as gravity, we're still not 100% sure what causes it. We could have, a long time ago, just said "gravity is here to stay, leave it alone, stop explaining it, probably has something to do with God." But we didn't, and we wound up with GPS.


The point is gravity while we do not know how it works we can scientifically prove it exist and does work. We do this by following strict scientific procedures. If you apply these procedures to macroevolution you would not prove it. AAMOF you would not even come close enough for it to be, IMO, a serious enough theory to be taught.




Heritagefarm said:


> Science is cool because it progresses. Religion doesn't.


Because science must because it is man where as a religion doesn't need to change because its God. As I have said before the more science learns and changes the more it 'proves' God.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> You have to disagree. I understand that you have no choice. To you the Bible has to be correct, because a single flaw in the Bible would put the entire work into question. No matter what is learned about our surroundings you'll need to interpret the Bible as being correct.
> 
> As astounding as that frame of mind might be, you're not alone. In fact 2/3rds of Americans have said they would reject scientific discoveries that are in conflict with the Bible. That's a huge number, much higher than those in Europe.
> 
> But science is not evil. The difference is that science is open to new and different ideas. Scientists are willing to change their view of how things work. The only ask one thing; that you prove your new ideas through observations and experimentation -- not scripture.
> 
> Religion can't accept that the Bible is wrong. If you open religion to being mistaken about something then the entire idea of religion falls flat on its face. You can't allow that to happen.
> 
> So we play word games with the claims of the Bible. Regardless of what it is, the words can be twisted to seem reasonable, and even correct. Can you turn water into wine? Can Jesus walk on water? I don't doubt that you can explain both away, although we know in our hearts that neither is true.


The problem I have is when science says something which it can not back up with its own standards. The same thing goes for any other religion. 

Science tells us it has a specific set of standards and rules it follows before it accepts something then it goes about accepting and teaching things which do not meet those standards.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> Why do you suppose God reveals himself to some in such an undeniable manner, while not revealing himself at all to others?


There's none so blind as those who will not see. Look around you and think "Is it really possible all of this happened by accident?" 

If you put the pieces of an analog watch in a container would you think it possible for you make a working watch if you just shook the container long enough for the parts to fall perfectly into their correct places in the correct order? Now compare the complexity of a watch to a "simple" single cell life form.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> There's none so blind as those who will not see. Look around you and think "Is it really possible all of this happened by accident?"
> 
> If you put the pieces of an analog watch in a container would you think it possible for you make a working watch if you just shook the container long enough for the parts to fall perfectly into their correct places in the correct order? Now compare the complexity of a watch to a "simple" single cell life form.


This is entropy at work. To make order from chaos requires an input. That input is the Creator.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> Ok, how about you do it now. Solve that grade school math problem.
> 
> So higher math does not rely on fundamental math principles?


 
That is correct. Fundamental math principle, if you multiply two negative numbers you get a positive answer. Fundamental math principle, a square root is a number which can be multiplied by itself to get the original number. Therefore you can never have a square roof of a negative number. But in higher math you ignore those fundamental principles and just say you can get the square root of -1 and call it _i _because its an imaginary number.


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> That is correct. Fundamental math principle, if you multiply two negative numbers you get a positive answer. Fundamental math principle, a square root is a number which can be multiplied by itself to get the original number. Therefore you can never have a square roof of a negative number. But in higher math you ignore those fundamental principles and just say you can get the square root of -1 and call it _i _because its an imaginary number.


Yup. It is one of the patches invented to make math work. This only serves to prove to me we dont have it quite right. The words I use to describe that go like this; We pursue truth. God is Truth.

Its kinda like what you said. Write a rulebook then break the rules.


----------



## watcher

Nevada said:


> It's not easy. It takes years of study to acquire a working knowledge of calculus. With time you can learn to think in terms of calculus. It's the language of engineers and physical scientists. It's like someone telling you that force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time, and you get a little picture of that in your head.
> 
> It was a little more difficult for me because my high school didn't offer any calculus at all. Many kids from larger inner-city high schools had a pretty good head start.


If you start in on thermodynamic, fluid dynamics or differential equations someone will probably report you for using dirty words, calculus is bad enough. I know some who would do it for using algebra, i.e. where someone slipped the alphabet into math class


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> "I think, therefore I am." If I can consider that something can simply cease to exist, have I not demonstrated I can comprehend "nothing?" Darkness does indeed exist; it is simply the absence of light. We can, in a lab, also create true vacuums. If there is even no light passing through the vacuum, then there is truly nothing there.


A lot depends on how you view things. You can not create darkness nor a vacuum. You can only remove light or matter leaving a void which you give a name to. IOW nothingness by most definitions can NOT exist.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> In any debate, going no against the standard accepted, the established, facts and theories requires the burden of proof. Nevada is right in this respect; if you have a claim contrary to established data, it's your job to back it up; not out job to disprove it, although that is frequently what happens (in general). This doesn't mean you're right or wrong, just that maybe you see persecution where there is only skepticism and questioning.
> 
> I disagree that we cannot understand "nothing," which seems to be putting some of our intelligence down. Why can we not comprehend 0?


The problem comes in when accepted theories are not based on 'facts' which are not 'proven' by normal accepted scientific standards. How can science accept a theory if it is based on an unproven assumption?


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> The problem comes in when accepted theories are not based on 'facts' which are not 'proven' by normal accepted scientific standards. How can science accept a theory if it is based on an unproven assumption?


I spent two to three days on this. I lost two to three days of my life for an apparent zip.

2+3+7+5+4

If you start with 2+3=6, I dont care how many correct steps you make after that, the answer is wrong.


----------



## greg273

watcher said:


> There's none so blind as those who will not see. Look around you and think "Is it really possible all of this happened by accident?"
> 
> If you put the pieces of an analog watch in a container would you think it possible for you make a working watch if you just shook the container long enough for the parts to fall perfectly into their correct places in the correct order? Now compare the complexity of a watch to a "simple" single cell life form.


 Who said it had to be an 'accident'? Perhaps the nature of matter is to form structure, to form life, then to dissolve and start all over. You're assuming there needs to be some sentient, anthropomorphic diety presiding over it all... and maybe there is, but I have no reason to believe its a prerequisite. 
ANd congratulations Watcher, you made it through an entire post without once mentioning the words 'Black Swan', your go-to science dissing phrase that means so much less than you think it does.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Who said it had to be an 'accident'? Perhaps the nature of matter is to form structure, to form life, then to dissolve and start all over. You're assuming there needs to be some sentient, anthropomorphic diety presiding over it all... and maybe there is, but I have no reason to believe its a prerequisite.
> ANd congratulations Watcher, you made it through an entire post without once mentioning the words 'Black Swan', your go-to science dissing phrase that means so much less than you think it does.


Are you saying your personal belief is that the law of entropy, a universally recognized thing, is wrong?

Personally, I dont think you believe that. You are just grasping at straws and throwing any old thing out there.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> This is entropy at work. To make order from chaos requires an input. That input is the Creator.


 Could be, or it could be order is just built into the fundamental nature of the universe. What is the 'input' when a crystal is formed from cooling molten rock? It is the rock itself, the molecular structure, expressing itself. What you call 'entropy' is not neccesarily entropy at all.


----------



## watcher

thericeguy said:


> I spent two to three days on this. I lost two to three days of my life for an apparent zip.


I once spend several days of my life planting seeds and at the end of it all I had was an apparently empty plot of land, zip, nada. Yet after waiting I discovered all my work was not for nothing. 

You never know what seeds you have planted and here you don't even know where you planted them because there are a lot of people who read post but do not respond.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Could be, or it could be order is just built into the fundamental nature of the universe. What is the 'input' when a crystal is formed from cooling molten rock? It is the rock itself, the molecular structure, expressing itself. What you call 'entropy' is not neccesarily entropy at all.


Again, if the fundamental nature of the universe is order, are you saying you believe just anout every scientist in the world is wrong? 

Definition of entropy. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/entropy


----------



## thericeguy

watcher said:


> I once spend several days of my life planting seeds and at the end of it all I had was an apparently empty plot of land, zip, nada. Yet after waiting I discovered all my work was not for nothing.
> 
> You never know what seeds you have planted and here you don't even know where you planted them because there are a lot of people who read post but do not respond.


I accept that, but did not feel like typing it for fear the seed may not germinate.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Could be, or it could be order is just built into the fundamental nature of the universe. What is the 'input' when a crystal is formed from cooling molten rock? It is the rock itself, the molecular structure, expressing itself. What you call 'entropy' is not neccesarily entropy at all.


And obviously, the energy input to form the crystal is the heating of the mass. This allows the molecules to reorder themselves. The speed of cooling will effect greatly how perfect a crystalline structure you get. You sure you want in on a science level?


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> And obviously, the energy input to form the crystal is the heating of the mass. This allows the molecules to reorder themselves. The speed of cooling will effect greatly how perfect a crystalline structure you get. You sure you want in on a science level?


Sure, lets 'get in it'. COOLING is not adding energy, so you have enthalpy AND entropy leaving at the same time. Get it?


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> Again, if the fundamental nature of the universe is order, are you saying you believe just anout every scientist in the world is wrong?
> 
> Definition of entropy. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/entropy


 As per your definition,



> a *hypothetical tendency* for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature


 No one knows for sure if that is the path we're on, so not sure why you think 'every scientist' thinks that. If you have a point, please make it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> The problem comes in when accepted theories are not based on 'facts' which are not 'proven' by normal accepted scientific standards. How can science accept a theory if it is based on an unproven assumption?


I'm too tired right now to get to everything, but I'd just like to say I agree. However, there are many things we can't really prove, specifically. Does that make them invalid just because we can't put them in a box in the lab and say XYZ?

I see evidence of creation because I want to. It's more beautiful that way. the poet in me screams at my logic. But the logic in me must argue the high probabibility that evolution is correct.


----------



## greg273

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm too tired right now to get to everything, but I'd just like to say I agree. However, there are many things we can't really prove, specifically. Does that make them invalid just because we can't put them in a box in the lab and say XYZ?
> 
> I see evidence of creation because I want to. It's more beautiful that way. the poet in me screams at my logic. But the logic in me must argue the high probabibility that evolution is correct.


They could both be correct. Perhaps God put it into motion, and evolution is his work in progress. To think we humans, imperfect, grunting, shambling bundles of neuroses, are the apex of an all-perfect dietys' creation is a little underwhelming. I think it, and we, are works in progress.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> Sure, lets 'get in it'. COOLING is not adding energy, so you have enthalpy AND entropy leaving at the same time. Get it?


Absolutely correct. But it is not the removal of energy that allowed the crystal to form in this example you used. It was the heating. Until sufficient energy is added, you cannot overcome molecular bonding for a reordering to occur. As that energy is removed, the crystal forms as bonds reform. Cool too quickly and you get imperfect order, thus an imperfect crystal. Its a point I already made. 

And all that stuff about maybe things preferring order? Go run that by a professor somewhere. See how far it flies.


----------



## thericeguy

Oddly enough, exposing metals to very cold temperatures allows a reordering to occur for reasons noone understands, or didnt last time I heard.


----------



## watcher

Heritagefarm said:


> I'm too tired right now to get to everything, but I'd just like to say I agree. However, there are many things we can't really prove, specifically. Does that make them invalid just because we can't put them in a box in the lab and say XYZ?
> 
> I see evidence of creation because I want to. It's more beautiful that way. the poet in me screams at my logic. But the logic in me must argue the high probabibility that evolution is correct.


But should your logic not also say you my not be therefore you must allow all other theories to be taught and discussed and the major flaws of macroevolution MUST be discussed? 

Answer me this one simple quesstion. What scientifically creditable evidence is there that supports the theory that a species can evolve into another completely different species?


----------



## Nevada

watcher said:


> But should your logic not also say you my not be therefore you must allow all other theories to be taught and discussed and the major flaws of macroevolution MUST be discussed?


That's complete nonsense. The idea of ID/creationism has no foundation in evidence or observation, so it fails to qualify as science. So your backup strategy is to suggest that ID should still be presented in science class, so students can decide for themselves. That's just a way to keep your foot in the door.

ID/creationism is not a scientific theory. It has no place in science class. But you know that already.



watcher said:


> Answer me this one simple quesstion. What scientifically creditable evidence is there that supports the theory that a species can evolve into another completely different species?


Fossil evidence supports that theory. DNA evidence backs up that theory. Anatomical evidence makes the theory air tight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> *Just a guess*, but, I would say that the person, in question, attacked first, *as is usual*.


Just a guess, with no basis in fact, perpetuating a myth



Farmerga said:


> Actually the Zero comment was about something else and that was an opinion, not "wrong" per say. Most people would see it as an attack,* like most of the poster in question's posts*.


And there you are complaining about something while doing it yourself.
It seems to be a common trait, even if not quite original


----------



## Heritagefarm

watcher said:


> A lot depends on how you view things. You can not create darkness nor a vacuum. You can only remove light or matter leaving a void which you give a name to. IOW nothingness by most definitions can NOT exist.





Nevada said:


> That's complete nonsense. The idea of ID/creationism has no foundation in evidence or observation, so it fails to qualify as science. So your backup strategy is to suggest that ID should still be presented in science class, so students can decide for themselves. That's just a way to keep your foot in the door.
> 
> ID/creationism is not a scientific theory. It has no place in science class. But you know that already.
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence supports that theory. DNA evidence backs up that theory. Anatomical evidence makes the theory air tight.


We don't like airtight theories, we like guesses and feely-feely sentiments that make us happier and sit with our preconceived notions of the world.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> That's complete nonsense. The idea of ID/creationism has no foundation in evidence or observation, so it fails to qualify as science. So your backup strategy is to suggest that ID should still be presented in science class, so students can decide for themselves. That's just a way to keep your foot in the door.
> 
> ID/creationism is not a scientific theory. It has no place in science class. But you know that already.
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence supports that theory. DNA evidence backs up that theory. Anatomical evidence makes the theory air tight.


It might surprise you to learn that there are Nobel laureates in Science that disagree with you..........some of them avowed atheists.
:huh:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...igent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/

The link is long, but interesting if you're into discussions by physicists, chemists, biologists and mathematicians......


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> It might surprise you to learn that there are Nobel laureates in Science that disagree with you..........some of them avowed atheists.
> :huh:
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...igent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/


It's isn't about being right or wrong, or even about who agrees or disagrees, it's about whether or not it's science. Unless it can be demonstrated that a deity capable of creating the universe exists, you can't convince the scientific community that ID is a plausible explanation. In the meantime it's scripture, not science.

But I'm not surprised in the least that some Nobel laureates are deeply religious. When I worked at a major oil company science & technology facility I knew a lot of scientists with advanced degrees who were also heavily into religion. In fact my high school chemistry teacher was a member of the church session where my family worshiped. But again, that doesn't make it science.


----------



## thericeguy

Your gonna have to bold that "some are atheists" part. It bounced off.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> They could both be correct. Perhaps God put it into motion, and evolution is his work in progress. To think we humans, imperfect, grunting, shambling bundles of neuroses, are the apex of an all-perfect dietys' creation is a little underwhelming. I think it, and we, are works in progress.


Greg, if we can not fight for just a few posts, I would like to share a personal belief with you. You will likely reject it. That part does not matter.


----------



## farmrbrown

thericeguy said:


> Your gonna have to bold that "some are atheists" part. It bounced off.


I know, right?
I was a little surprised myself at some of the downright contempt for evolution theory that the atheists had, but it was based on math and probability.
The same with the chemists and DNA researchers.
You could almost picture them at the 7-11 looking at the folks in the lotto line, lol.
:grit:


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Greg, if we can not fight for just a few posts, I would like to share a personal belief with you. You will likely reject it. That part does not matter.


I wonder, are you willing to look at both theories and give science a fair chance?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> I wonder, are you willing to look at both theories and give science a fair chance?


Unrelated to the quote, but absolutely. If I point out a scientific flaw or logical flaw, will you recognize it? If yes, lets begin. If no, hell no. I dont do 1 sided debates.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Unrelated to the quote, but absolutely. If I point out a scientific flaw or logical flaw, will you recognize it? If yes, lets begin. If no, hell no. I dont do 1 sided debates.


There's a lot in my area science that I don't believe in. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means that more work needs to be done. It helps to understand the politics and motivations of the scientific community, since that provides clues about what should be suspect.

But it's frivolous to doubt fundamental science, such as gravity, the age of the earth, and yes, evolution. Those principles are obvious. We're the ape that got lucky. Follow this short clip. It's only 2 minutes.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ZE2NGvJ0I[/ame]


----------



## thericeguy

Aside from showing a skull, please identify a single word of scientific fact in that video?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Aside from showing a skull, please identify a single word of scientific fact in that video?


It's a clip that explains how it happened. It wasn't intended as a scientific proof.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> It's a clip that explains how it happened. It wasn't intended as a scientific proof.


I thought you were going to present scientific evidence, and I was going to give that evidence s fair shot. Hold up. I will go find a hollywood movie of mu opinion and ask you to watch it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Aside from showing a skull, please identify a single word of scientific fact in that video?


Evolution is an entire field of Biology. The scientific proof consists of textbook and textbook. Maybe we'll start with Darwin's book, which has a title so long I can never remember it.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> I thought you were going to present scientific evidence, and I was going to give that evidence s fair shot. Hold up. I will go find a hollywood movie of mu opinion and ask you to watch it.


Nevada's being far nicer to you than you deserve. You lace at least half of your posts with jibes and insults, then complain when others do the same.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> I thought you were going to present scientific evidence, and I was going to give that evidence s fair shot. Hold up. I will go find a hollywood movie of mu opinion and ask you to watch it.


OK, so why do we give the Bible story more weight than the story in the clip?


----------



## thericeguy

We seem to be even currently. I have a movie too. Little over 4 minutes of your life. 

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9MPef0FT7oY[/ame]


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> OK, so why do we give the Bible story more weight than the story in the clip?


I havent is this discussion. Your film was about conjecture with 0 evidence. It failed the standard of science. It is not even science.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Evolution is an entire field of Biology. The scientific proof consists of textbook and textbook. Maybe we'll start with Darwin's book, which has a title so long I can never remember it.


The Bible is the number 1 selling book on the planet year after year. Been so for a very long time. By your definition of proof, it wins.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> We seem to be even currently. I have a movie too. Little over 4 minutes of your life.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9MPef0FT7oY


Scripture.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Nevada's being far nicer to you than you deserve. You lace at least half of your posts with jibes and insults, then complain when others do the same.


I am not going to apologize for my beliefs. I know Christians are seen as meek and mild and supposed to roll over. Saying no, thats not right ... Is not an insult.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> I havent is this discussion. Your film was about conjecture with 0 evidence. It failed the standard of science. It is not even science.


I told you, it wasn't intended to be a scientific proof.

But I asked you a question and I think I deserve an answer. Why should we accept scripture with no scientific proof over the explanation I posted?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> I told you, it wasn't intended to be a scientific proof.
> 
> But I asked you a question and I think I deserve an answer. Why should we accept scripture with no scientific proof over the explanation I posted?


We should not. Both lack any scientific proof. I did answer that when I said "we are even". We both presented a hollywood movie. Lets move on to science.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> I havent is this discussion. Your film was about conjecture with 0 evidence. It failed the standard of science. It is not even science.


 Your film was far, far worse. Like listening to some angry natives trying to appease the Sun-God. 
Allegory goes over peoples head sometimes, especially when they mistake it for literal fact.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> We should not. Both lack any scientific proof. I did answer that when I said "we are even". We both presented a hollywood movie. Lets move on to science.


Where's the science behind scripture?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Where's the science behind scripture?


You asked me if I would give science a fair chance. I said yes, and I will. Show some.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> You asked me if I would give science a fair chance. I said yes, and I will. Show some.


You see, the thing about overturning an established and accepted scientific theory is that the burden of proof is on you. Since established theory has already met the burden of proof, it's your turn now.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> The Bible is the number 1 selling book on the planet year after year. Been so for a very long time. By your definition of proof, it wins.


But it's the same book. The textbooks contain evidence, facts, theories, and science. Since you want to talk about science, my example would win.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> You see, the thing about overturning an established and accepted scientific theory is that the burden of proof is on you. Since established theory has already met the burden of proof, it's your turn now.


That wasnt the deal you offered, now is it?


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> That wasnt the deal you offered, now is it?


More veiled insults. Nevada is correct - the burden of proof has increasingly been shifted to the religious To try and prove their theories. They cannot. Same with climate change deniers - the burden of proof is now am them because their claims are idiotic and lack evidence and cohesion.


----------



## thericeguy

Besides, when that was tried, any of us got something from this list:

Silence
Talk in circles
Divert attention
Ignore

It does not even resemble a sincere debate. So, your deal or not? Here is your chance to crush my faith with undisputable facts.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> That wasnt the deal you offered, now is it?


Our deal was for you to give science a chance, but that's not going to happen. Asking for proof for scripture had nothing to do with our deal.

So how do you know that God created the heavens & the earth?


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> More veiled insults. Nevada is correct - the burden of proof has increasingly been shifted to the religious To try and prove their theories. They cannot. Same with climate change deniers - the burden of proof is now am them because their claims are idiotic and lack evidence and cohesion.


Dude. Seriously? Are you even kidding? He said will you have a talk and give science a chance. I said yes. Holding him to that offer is no insult. Blow it out some orifice.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Our deal was for you to give science a chance, but that's not going to happen. Asking for proof for scripture had nothing to do with our deal.
> 
> So how do you know that God created the heavens & the earth?


I agree. Which is why I reject your demand I provide proof of scripture. It was not part of the offer. Still awaiting your proof you mentioned. To date, you offered a possible explanation. So did I. There are others involving alien DNA. So?


----------



## thericeguy

All you have managed to prove is that you believe in something for which you can offer no proof. At the moment you are supposed to dhow proof, you do not and blame me because "that wont happen". Intellectually weak argument.


----------



## thericeguy

thericeguy said:


> Besides, when that was tried, any of us got something from this list:
> 
> Silence
> Talk in circles
> Divert attention
> Ignore
> 
> It does not even resemble a sincere debate. So, your deal or not? Here is your chance to crush my faith with undisputable facts.


This just happened, AGAIN!


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Dude. Seriously? Are you even kidding? He said will you have a talk snd give science a chance. I ssid yes. Holding him to that offer is no insult. Blow it out dome orifice.


My estimation of your age just went down a few notches.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Where's the science behind scripture?


Good question. The answers have been there all along.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> I agree. Which is why I reject your demand I provide proof of scripture.


You've got nothing?


----------



## Heritagefarm

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm




> Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution
> 
> 
> The Nobel Prize winning scientist Linus Pauling aptly described science as the search for truth. Science does this by continuously comparing its theories objectively with evidence in the natural world. When theories no longer conform to the evidence, they are modified or rejected in favor of new theories that do conform. In other words, science constantly tries to prove its assumptions to be false and rejects implausible explanations. In this way, scientific knowledge and understanding grow over time. Religious explanations for the order of things are not science because they are based primarily on faith and do not subject themselves to be objectively falsified. Because of this fundamental difference in the approach to understanding our natural world, the U.S. Supreme Court in effect decided in 1987 that the Biblically based "creation science" is not a science and cannot be taught as such in public schools as an alternative or in addition to the mainstream evolutionary theory of the biological sciences. However, religious creation stories and the idea of "intelligent design" can be taught in philosophy, religion, or history courses. Religion and Science provide different approaches to knowledge. It is important to understand both.


Lots of good info in here on how evolution occurs and why we believe it to be correct. When something better comes along, the the Big Giant Head appears I the sky and tells everyone to bow, maybe we'll change our beliefs.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> But it's the same book. The textbooks contain evidence, facts, theories, and science. Since you want to talk about science, my example would win.


A science book contains observed data and human conclusions. The Bible contains exactly those things. Explain the difference.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> The best part about you is knowing my kids wont have to deal with you. Did you reproduce?


 The best part about you is you won't be on this forum too much longer. The sad part is, you'll actually be out there somewhere,still blowing smoke and acting like a horses behind.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of good info in here on how evolution occurs and why we believe it to be correct. When something better comes along, the the Big Giant Head appears I the sky and tells everyone to bow, maybe we'll change our beliefs.


On that I can agree  agree a whole bunch


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> Good question. The answers have been there all along.
> 
> http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml


I never found science to be in conflict with my religion. I've, personally, rejected religion, and especially organized religion, in favor of a freer way of thinking about life. I find rigid dogmas and restrict rules to be intellectually stifling. In other words, science didn't cause me to lose faith, and in fact, I still have my faith. It has just taken a different form, and I have taken a different path on the way to moral and spiritual enlightenment.


----------



## thericeguy

greg273 said:


> The best part about you is you won't be on this forum too much longer. The sad part is, you'll actually be out there somewhere,still blowing smoke and acting like a horses behind.


But I wont be claiming matter tends towards order because I am desperate to appear smart and deep thinking.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> A science book contains observed data and human conclusions. The Bible contains exactly those things. Explain the difference.


Scientific evidence must be testable, repeatable and falsifiable. It is evidence based.

The bible is none of those things.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> A science book contains observed data and human conclusions. The Bible contains exactly those things. Explain the difference.


Jesus obviously existed. What's less obvious is whether God exists. Where's the data for that? God Himself admits he doesn't work that way (which is terribly unhelpful.)



greg273 said:


> The best part about you is you won't be on this forum too much longer. The sad part is, you'll actually be out there somewhere,still blowing smoke and acting like a horses behind.


Bah. BFF and AK are still here.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> I never found science to be in conflict with my religion. I've, personally, rejected religion, and especially organized religion, in favor of a freer way of thinking about life. I find rigid dogmas and restrict rules to be intellectually stifling. In other words, science didn't cause me to lose faith, and in fact, I still have my faith. It has just taken a different form, and I have taken a different path on the way to moral and spiritual enlightenment.


Yes, you have become smarter than God in your mind with all your truths. I get that.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Jesus obviously existed. What's less obvious is whether God exists. Where's the data for that? God Himself admits he doesn't work that way (which is terribly unhelpful.)
> 
> 
> 
> Bah. BFF and AK are still here.


You know where the data is. Silly question. You do not agree with the data. Different topic.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Yes, you have become smarter than God in your mind with all your truths. I get that.


Your ridicule of my beliefs shows a great misunderstanding of the world in general, a disrespect for humans, a lack of consideration for others beliefs and feelings, and a total and complete absence of maturity.

Eta: your behavior is that of a troll. Good night!


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> A science book contains observed data and human conclusions. The Bible contains exactly those things. Explain the difference.


As I asked before, how do you know that God created the heavens & earth?


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> It might surprise you to learn that there are Nobel laureates in Science that disagree with you..........some of them avowed atheists.
> :huh:
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...igent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/
> 
> The link is long, but interesting if you're into discussions by physicists, chemists, biologists and mathematicians......





Nevada said:


> You see, the thing about overturning an established and accepted scientific theory is that the burden of proof is on you. Since established theory has already met the burden of proof, it's your turn now.


That was why I posted the previous link.
Here are a few excerpts.


*Frank Allen, Professor of Biophysics, University of Manitoba, Canada and recipient of the Tory Gold Medal, Royal Society of Canada writes:

&#8216;The adjustments of the earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by chance.&#8217; [3]
(ALLEN, F. 1968. &#8220;The Origin of The World &#8212; By Chance or Design?&#8221; In: The Evidence of God in An Expanding Universe, by Monsma, J.C. Thomas Samuel Publishers, Bombay, p.20.)

What he evidently means is that in the long journey of evolution we find design, order and harmony which cannot be ascribed to chance.

Commenting on the complexity of proteins and the manner in which they play the essential role of building, supporting and advancing life, Allen categorically rejects the idea of attributing this to chance&#8230;

[The article goes on to cite many other scientists &#8211; VJT.]

The time scale required for evolution, if haphazard blind brainless chance were to be its creator, is so enormously large that it boggles the mind of even the most expert mathematician. No human expression can describe it, no human mind can grasp the immensity of the figures involved.

As mentioned earlier, Allen estimated the time needed for the chance synthesis of the complex proteins to be 10^248 years. The entire span of evolution however requires a much larger slice of time than the mere production of proteins to which Allen refers.

To help the unfamiliar reader visualize this mathematical concept, we would like to remind him that the total age of the universe since the Big Bang is only eighteen to twenty billion years. No name has been ever invented or will ever be invented to denote the astronomical figure Professor Frank Allen has worked out. Perhaps eternity is the nearest name to it.

*







*Wolfgang Pauli was one of the true giants of 20th century physics. In 1945, after being nominated by Albert Einstein, he received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his &#8220;decisive contribution through his discovery of a new law of Nature, the exclusion principle or Pauli principle,&#8221; involving spin theory, underpinning the structure of matter and the whole of chemistry.

Wolfgang Pauli left the Catholic Church as a young man, in 1929 (see his Wikipedia biography and see this online article on Jewish Physicists, footnote 40, for additional details). As far as I can tell, Pauli did not believe in God in later life. For instance, in his letter to Sambursky of October 7, 1957 (see footnote 51 in this article), he declared his belief that ultimate reality is impersonal.

Given his atheism, then, it is all the more remarkable that Pauli had little patience with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

(a) Why Wolfgang Pauli doubted Darwinian evolution: the total absence of probability calculations rendering the theory plausible

Few people are aware that Pauli was highly skeptical of Darwinian evolution, openly questioning the orthodox view that random mutations, culled by natural selection, were sufficient to explain the diversity of life-forms we see today. Pauli regarded Darwinian evolution as an implausible mechanism for evolution, on purely mathematical grounds. In place of Darwinian evolution, Pauli advocated a kind of directed evolution.

Evidence of Pauli&#8217;s skepticism has been documented in section 7.1 of an article by Harald Atmanspacher and Hans Primas, entitled, Pauli&#8217;s ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science (Journal of Consciousness Studies 13, 5-50, 2006), from which I shall quote an excerpt. The italics in the quotes below are Pauli&#8217;s:

&#8230;Before the advent of molecular biology in the 1940s, the mainstream position with respect to biological evolution was referred to by the term Modern Synthesis. A key concept of this position was that the genetic variation within a population arises by random mutations, not by adaptively directed mutations and recombinations (Mayr 1982). Pauli was not convinced that the evolution of life could be explained by random mutations only and questioned this aspect of the Darwinian model of natural evolution64)

&#8220;As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.&#8221;*


*
Sir Fred Hoyle, FRS (1915 &#8211; 2001) was an English astronomer and mathematician who is famous for having developed the Steady State Theory in the 1940s, along with astronomers Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. However, Hoyle&#8217;s principal contribution to science was his work on nucleosynthesis: the idea that the chemical elements were synthesized from primordial hydrogen and helium in stars. Many scientists were dismayed that a Nobel prize was awarded to his collaborator William A. Fowler, but Hoyle himself was excluded from the prize. (See Fred Hoyle: the scientist whose rudeness cost him a Nobel prize by Robin McKie. Article in The Guardian, 2 October 2010; The Observer, 3 October 2010.) &#8220;I have no idea how the Swedes decided to make an award to Chandrasekhar and Fowler but not to Hoyle,&#8221; admits astronomer Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society. &#8220;However, I think it would be widely accepted that it was an unfair misjudgment.&#8221; On the other hand, Sir Harry Kroto, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, argues that Hoyle was lacking in scientific objectivity, and that he would have used his Nobel to foist his views on the scientific community, had it been awarded to him. At any rate, there can be no doubt that Hoyle possessed a brilliantly original scientific mind, and was a truly independent thinker.

Here are some of Hoyle&#8217;s better-known remarks on evolution and the origin of life:

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of&#8230;

(Hoyle, Fred, Evolution from Space, Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, 12 January 1982; Evolution from Space (1982) pp. 27&#8211;28 ISBN 0894900838; Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (1984) ISBN 0671492632.)

In his 1982/1984 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10^40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80), Hoyle argued that even with a whole universe full of primordial soup, blind processes would have little chance of producing life. He claimed:

&#8220;The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.&#8221;*


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Your ridicule of my beliefs shows a great misunderstanding of the world in general, a disrespect for humans, a lack of consideration for others beliefs and feelings, and a total and complete absence of maturity.
> 
> Eta: your behavior is that of a troll. Good night!


You get what you give. You give me zero respect because of my beliefs. You hide brhind safety in numbers and offer little to no personal beliefs. A lot of people say it is your argument, so prove them wrong. Blah. It is a position of personsl weakness, but then you did say philosophy wasnt your thing. Just got sick of you trashing me.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> That was why I posted the previous link.
> Here are a few excerpts.
> 
> 
> *Frank Allen, Professor of Biophysics, University of Manitoba, Canada and recipient of the Tory Gold Medal, Royal Society of Canada writes:
> 
> &#8216;The adjustments of the earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by chance.&#8217; [3]
> (ALLEN, F. 1968. &#8220;The Origin of The World &#8212; By Chance or Design?&#8221; In: The Evidence of God in An Expanding Universe, by Monsma, J.C. Thomas Samuel Publishers, Bombay, p.20.)
> 
> What he evidently means is that in the long journey of evolution we find design, order and harmony which cannot be ascribed to chance.
> 
> Commenting on the complexity of proteins and the manner in which they play the essential role of building, supporting and advancing life, Allen categorically rejects the idea of attributing this to chance&#8230;
> 
> [The article goes on to cite many other scientists &#8211; VJT.]
> 
> The time scale required for evolution, if haphazard blind brainless chance were to be its creator, is so enormously large that it boggles the mind of even the most expert mathematician. No human expression can describe it, no human mind can grasp the immensity of the figures involved.
> 
> As mentioned earlier, Allen estimated the time needed for the chance synthesis of the complex proteins to be 10^248 years. The entire span of evolution however requires a much larger slice of time than the mere production of proteins to which Allen refers.
> 
> To help the unfamiliar reader visualize this mathematical concept, we would like to remind him that the total age of the universe since the Big Bang is only eighteen to twenty billion years. No name has been ever invented or will ever be invented to denote the astronomical figure Professor Frank Allen has worked out. Perhaps eternity is the nearest name to it.
> 
> *


All this is is nothing more than someone's opinion. There is no scientific proof of his assertions, none at all. 

I ascribe it to what I call the Doctrine of Incredulity. Basically, the writer cannot grasp the notions of the time scales or evolution, and therefore he posits that no one else can, either. Interesting opinion, but nothing more.


----------



## thericeguy

Farmr, they dont care. They say prove it, and when you do they say it doesnt count. Let them make the discovery on judgement day. They are full of hubris.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> All this is is nothing more than someone's opinion. There is no scientific proof of his assertions, none at all.
> 
> I ascribe it to what I call the Doctrine of Incredulity. Basically, the writer cannot grasp the notion of the time scales or evolution, and therefore he posits that no one else can, either. Interesting opinion, but nothing more.


Given that time is linear, do you argue that out thousands of years is insufficient to observe even a single species becoming something else? If we watched for 10,000 years, would you question? A million and reject? Or would you just continue to say not long enough?


----------



## thericeguy

Since noone has ever documented one thing becoming another, why is evolution science and not opinion by your very standard?


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> Given that time is linear, do you argue that out thousands of years is insufficient to observe even a single species becoming something else? If we watched for 10,000 years, would you question? A million and reject? Or would you just continue to say not long enough?


The scientific evidence shows that evolution requires not thousands, not millions, but *billions* of years. About 4 billion, to be more exact. Humans have been around for only around 200,000 years. That gives you an idea of the enormous time scale required for natural selection to work its "magic."

You need to understand natural selection and how it works before we can have a meaningful discussion about "one thing becoming another."


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> I am desperate to appear smart and deep thinking.


 Indeed.


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> All this is is nothing more than someone's opinion. There is no scientific proof of his assertions, none at all.
> 
> I ascribe it to what I call the Doctrine of Incredulity. Basically, the writer cannot grasp the notions of the time scales or evolution, and therefore he posits that no one else can, either. Interesting opinion, but nothing more.


Actually, it isn't about opinions. Within those links are scientific papers published with the mathematical calculations to back up their claims.

What you may have misinterpreted about the comments regarding time, was that the evolution theory is already based on a finite estimate of time that has passed.
Using that restriction, the odds of probability calculated for it (evolution) to have occurred within that time period are too large to be credible.
Note:
These aren't internet crackpots...............They've all won Nobel prizes in their field of science.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> The scientific evidence shows that evolution requires not thousands, not millions, but *billions* of years.  About 4 billion, to be more exact. Humans have been around for only around 200,000 years. That gives you an idea of the enormous time scale required for natural selection to work its "magic."
> 
> You need to understand natural selection and how it works before we can have a meaningful discussion about "one thing becoming another."


I think I qualify. Take me from primordial slime to humans in 4 billion years and not encounter a single species on modern history on the verge of an evolution. Your degrading insinuation about my education does not frighten me.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> âThe adjustments of the earth for life are far too numerous to be accounted for by chance.â


That's probably true for a short period of time, like a few million years. But we're talking about time spans in the thousands of millions of years.

What you see on earth today is not the objective. The earth and its inhabitants are still developing. This is just how it's turned out -- so far. The earth will continue to evolve with or without mankind. We've built a grand society, but it was only by chance.

Why is man so different from other species? Because we've been able to use our intelligence to document what we've learned. That enables future generations to learn a lot about our surroundings from our forefathers, and then build on that knowledge for future generations. Most other species only teach their young to hunt, gather food, and protect themselves from predators. Some don't even do that.

We pass on science & technology to our young, and look what we've been able to accomplish by doing that! But strangely, some people around here are seeking to stunt that process.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> Actually, it isn't about opinions. Within those links are scientific papers published with the mathematical calculations to back up their claims.
> 
> What you may have misinterpreted about the comments regarding time, was that the evolution theory is already based on a finite estimate of time that has passed.
> Using that restriction, the odds of probability calculated for it (evolution) to have occurred within that time period are too large to be credible.
> Note:
> These aren't internet crackpots...............They've all won Nobel prizes in their field of science.


I'll go so far based on your comments as to say that the authors then pose an interesting hypothesis, but not more than that. 

It would take far more to upend the theory of evolution -- which is accepted as scientific fact, since it is impossible to fully prove it, no different than being able to fully prove gravity or space time. But we know all these -- including evolution -- are real things, because they have been endlessly tested and verified, and no one has been able to successfully falsify them to date. 

I encourage these fellows to continue to try, because that's what science is all about. We may learn some new, interesting stuff! But to think whatever they find is going to disprove evolution in total is highly unlikely.

That's the beauty of science. It is simultaneously the most certain and uncertain knowledge we have. It goes only where the actual *evidence* leads.


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> The scientific evidence shows that evolution requires not thousands, not millions, but *billions* of years. About 4 billion, to be more exact. Humans have been around for only around 200,000 years. That gives you an idea of the enormous time scale required for natural selection to work its "magic."
> 
> You need to understand natural selection and how it works before we can have a meaningful discussion about "one thing becoming another."



You're off by about 239 zeroes.......................




As mentioned earlier, Allen estimated the time needed for the chance synthesis of the complex proteins to be *10^248 years.* The entire span of evolution however requires a much larger slice of time than the mere production of proteins to which Allen refers.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> That's probably true for a short period of time, like a few million years. But we're talking about time spans in the thousands of millions of years.
> 
> What you see on earth today is not the objective. The earth and its inhabitants are still developing. This is just how it's turned out -- so far. The earth will continue to evolve with or without mankind. We've built a grand society, but it was only by chance.
> 
> Why is man so different from other species? Because we've been able to use our intelligence to document what we've learned. That enables future generations to learn a lot about our surroundings from our forefathers, and then build on that knowledge for future generations. Most other species only teach their young to hunt, gather food, and protect themselves from predators. Some don't even do that.
> 
> We pass on science & technology to our young, and look what we've been able to accomplish by doing that! But strangely, some people around here are seeking to stunt that process.


I will assume that was directed at me. You are wrong. I do not want to stop science. The only difference is you see what "we" have done and I see what "God" has done. One comes from a position of importance. One comes from humility. Same outcome. Might check out then Greek trajedies.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> I think I qualify. Take me from primordial slime to humans in 4 billion years and not encounter a single species on modern history on the verge of an evolution. Your degrading insinuation about my education does not frighten me.


Is it your understanding that one type of species just sort of pops out of another type of species, all in a big change? Your comment above implies that this is what you think evolution is. If I'm wrong, will you please explain how you think it works?


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> You're off by about 239 zeroes.......................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As mentioned earlier, Allen estimated the time needed for the chance synthesis of the complex proteins to be *10^248 years.* The entire span of evolution however requires a much larger slice of time than the mere production of proteins to which Allen refers.


Again, that's someone's hypothesis. He hasn't proved it yet.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> That's probably true for a short period of time, like a few million years. But we're talking about time spans in the thousands of millions of years.
> 
> What you see on earth today is not the objective. The earth and its inhabitants are still developing. This is just how it's turned out -- so far. The earth will continue to evolve with or without mankind. We've built a grand society, but it was only by chance.
> 
> Why is man so different from other species? Because we've been able to use our intelligence to document what we've learned. That enables future generations to learn a lot about our surroundings from our forefathers, and then build on that knowledge for future generations. Most other species only teach their young to hunt, gather food, and protect themselves from predators. Some don't even do that.
> 
> We pass on science & technology to our young, and look what we've been able to accomplish by doing that! But strangely, some people around here are seeking to stunt that process.





Raeven said:


> I'll go so far based on your comments as to say that the authors then pose an interesting hypothesis, but not more than that.
> 
> It would take far more to upend the theory of evolution -- which is accepted as scientific fact, since it is impossible to fully prove it, no different than being able to fully prove gravity or space time. But we know all these -- including evolution -- are real things, because they have been endlessly tested and verified, and no one has been able to successfully falsify them to date.
> 
> I encourage these fellows to continue to try, because that's what science is all about. We may learn some new, interesting stuff! But to think whatever they find is going to disprove evolution in total is highly unlikely.
> 
> That's the beauty of science. It is simultaneously the most certain and uncertain knowledge we have. It goes only where the actual *evidence* leads.


How can you disprove what has not been proved? It is accepted in masse ONLY because it provides an explanation that does not invoke God. It goes against science. Basic science. And fails logic tests.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> We pass on science & technology to our young, and look what we've been able to accomplish by doing that! But strangely, some people around here are seeking to stunt that process.


Not at all!

My opinion is that the more we investigate and learn thru science, the more evidence we see from the hand of God.
I would encourage the exploration, not stifle it.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> How can you disprove what has not been proved? It is accepted in masse ONLY because it provides an explanation that does not invoke God. It goes against science. Basic science. And fails logic tests.


This is where you're entirely wrong. The scientific method has no interest in proving or disproving a god. It goes only where evidence leads. If evidence leads to a god, then science would readily accept it. So far, no joy.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> This is where you're entirely wrong. The scientific method has no interest in proving or disproving a god. It goes only where evidence leads. If evidence leads to a god, then science would readily accept it. So far, no joy.


Do you accept the principle of entropy as a scientific principle? The universe moves to a more random state?


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> Do you accept the principle of entropy as a scientific principle? The universe moves to a more random state?


I'd appreciate your answering the question I posed to you first, about your understanding of evolution and how it works.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> I'd appreciate your answering the question I posed to you first, about your understanding of evolution and how it works.


Did you miss me saying I was qualified? If so, I am qualified. I would also appreciate you setting aside your obvious prejudice that Christians are uneducated persons who could never have a molecular biology degree. Then we could have meaningful discussion about the mutation of DNA. I am qualified for this conversation.


----------



## thericeguy

Pretty sad you have to flash paper to even get someone to take you seriously. Cant judge you by your argument. I didnt see you flash your qualifications. Since you use the word science, am I not supposed to ask? Do you see how denegrating it is to ask?


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> Did you miss me saying I was qualified? If so, I am qualified. I would also appreciate you setting aside your obvious prejudice that Christians are uneducated persons who could never have a molecular biology degree. Then we could have meaningful discussion about the mutation of DNA. I am qualified for this conversation.


Please stop bootstrapping my inquiry about your understanding of evolution into an indictment about what all Christians think about evolution. I know many Christians who are well educated on the subject. It is your comments alone about evolution and what you appear to think it means that has caused me to ask you explain your understanding of it, because you seem to think it means things that are not the commonly accepted meanings. 

It is important that we have a common understanding of the terms in order to have a productive discussion. You simply stating, "I am qualified for this conversation," is not sufficient to anyone but yourself. 

If you truly wish to have an honest exchange of ideas, please explain your understanding of how evolution works. Otherwise, you're merely dissembling.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> Please stop bootstrapping my inquiry about your understanding of evolution into an indictment about what all Christians think about evolution. I know many Christians who are well educated on the subject. It is your comments alone about evolution and what you appear to think it means that has caused me to ask you explain your understanding of it, because you seem to think it means things that are not the commonly accepted meanings.
> 
> It is important that we have a common understanding of the terms in order to have a productive discussion. You simply stating, "I am qualified for this conversation," is not sufficient to anyone but yourself.
> 
> If you truly wish to have an honest exchange of ideas, please explain your understanding of how evolution works. Otherwise, you're merely dissembling.


Random mutations occur in DNA. Statistically, these mutations will be negative. Sterility. Death before birth. But occasionally they provide a benefit. Increased reproduction being the most important, directly or indirectly. This will influence the gene pool in favor of the mutation and allow it to persist, possibly even overtake, other gene sequences, depending on how much advantage the mutation offered the individual. These effects accumulate over geologic time. 

Did I pass?


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> This is where you're entirely wrong. The scientific method has no interest in proving or disproving a god. It goes only where evidence leads. * If evidence leads to a god, then science would readily accept it.* So far, no joy.


A flaw in that thinking has already been pointed out.
The Hubble has shown evidence of The Big Bang, which is a commonly accepted scientific theory.
BUT, it also means that something (the universe) was created out of nothing.......which goes AGAINST all scientific theories.

With no other scientific explanation available to explain how something can come from nothing, why hasn't a "Creator" been accepted as at least a possible answer as a working theory?


----------



## thericeguy

I change my mind. I do not want to have a conversation with a person whom would administer a test to persons before allocating them their time. It reveals a personality flaw.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> Good question. The answers have been there all along.
> 
> http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml





Raeven said:


> Scientific evidence must be testable, repeatable and falsifiable. It is evidence based.
> 
> The bible is none of those things.


Those requirements exclude some important theories like the Big Bang and evolution, don't they?
Those would be hard to repeat, I'm sure.

I think a lot of minds have been closed about science being used in the Bible, just as some believers in God refuse to see anything worthwhile in science.



*Paleontology Statements Consistent With Paleontology

Dinosaurs are referred to in several Bible books. The book of Job describes two dinosaurs. One is described in chapter 40 starting at verse 15, and the other in chapter 41 starting at verse 1. We think you will agree that 1Â½ chapters about dinosaurs is a lot&#8212;since most people do not even realize that they are mentioned in the Bible. (Actually reading the Bible would help, though. smile ) Click this sentence to see our Dinosaurs page if you would like more information in this subject area.
Astronomy Statements Consistent With Astronomy

The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.

Genesis 22:17
Blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies.

Jeremiah 33:22
&#8220;As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, nor the sand of the sea measured, so will I multiply the descendants of David My servant and the Levites who minister to Me.&#8221;
Even today, scientists admit that they do not know how many stars there are. Only about 3,000 can be seen with the naked eye. We have seen estimates of 10 to the 21st (EXP)power stars&#8212;which is a lot of stars.[2] (The number of grains of sand on the earth&#8217;s seashores is estimated to be 10 to the 25th.(EXP) As scientists discover more stars, wouldn&#8217;t it be interesting to discover that these two numbers match?)

Anthropology Statements Consistent With Anthropology

We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.

Job 30:5,6
They were driven out from among men,
They shouted at them as at a thief.
They had to live in the clefts of the valleys,
In caves of the earth and the rocks.
Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth. Then for some reason they deteriorated mentally, physically, and spiritually.[1] (Go into a bad part of your town and you will see this concept in action today.)

Hydrology Statements Consistent With Hydrology

The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.[3]

Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth;
He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.

Jeremiah 10:13
When He utters His voice,
There is a multitude of waters in the heavens:
&#8220;And He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth.
He makes lightning for the rain,
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.&#8221;


Geology Statements Consistent With Geology




The Bible describes the Earth&#8217;s crust (along with a comment on astronomy).




Jeremiah 31:37
Thus says the LORD:
&#8220;If heaven above can be measured,
And the foundations of the earth searched out beneath,
I will also cast off all the seed of Israel
For all that they have done, says the LORD.&#8221;
Although some scientists claim that they have now measured the size of the universe, it is interesting to note that every human attempt to drill through the earth&#8217;s crust to the plastic mantle beneath has, thus far, ended in failure.[1]




The Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.
Isaiah 40:22
It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,
And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers,
Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,
And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
*


----------



## AmericanStand

Nevada said:


> But I asked you a question and I think I deserve an answer. Why should we accept scripture with no scientific proof over the explanation I posted?



Finally the key question. !
As a scientist don't you think we should use the theory with the most and highest quality evidence as our main the theory ?
That would be creation by a higher power.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> A flaw in that thinking has already been pointed out.
> The Hubble has shown evidence of The Big Bang, which is a commonly accepted scientific theory.
> BUT, it also means that something (the universe) was created out of nothing.......which goes AGAINST all scientific theories. With no other scientific explanation available to explain how something can come from nothing, why hasn't a "Creator" been accepted as at least a possible answer as a working theory?


My latest reading is that the theoretical math shows exactly that. The universe *can* be created out of nothing. At this point, however, I'd say we're still firmly in "we don't know" territory. And that's the answer to your question. No one *is* ruling out a creator as a possible answer. But that doesn't make it *the* answer, and so far, there has been no *proof* of a creator.

Since faith doesn't require proof of any kind, I don't understand why believers get so fired up about it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> A flaw in that thinking has already been pointed out.
> The Hubble has shown evidence of The Big Bang, which is a commonly accepted scientific theory.
> BUT, it also means that something (the universe) was created out of nothing.......which goes AGAINST all scientific theories.
> 
> With no other scientific explanation available to explain how something can come from nothing, *why hasn't a "Creator" been accepted *as at least a possible answer as a working theory?


Because science doesn't deal in fantasy and there's no reason to think the "god" you like is any more real than all the other gods and goddesses in human history


----------



## Bearfootfarm

AmericanStand said:


> Finally the key question. !
> As a scientist don't you think we should use the theory with *the most and highest quality evidence *as our main the theory ?
> That would be creation by a higher power.


There is no "evidence" 
There is just lots of talk


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> That's complete nonsense. The idea of ID/creationism has no foundation in evidence or observation, so it fails to qualify as science. So your backup strategy is to suggest that ID should still be presented in science class, so students can decide for themselves. That's just a way to keep your foot in the door.
> 
> ID/creationism is not a scientific theory. It has no place in science class. But you know that already.
> 
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence supports that theory. DNA evidence backs up that theory. Anatomical evidence makes the theory air tight.





Nevada said:


> It's isn't about being right or wrong, or even about who agrees or disagrees, it's about whether or not it's science. Unless it can be demonstrated that a deity capable of creating the universe exists, you can't convince the scientific community that ID is a plausible explanation. In the meantime it's scripture, not science.
> 
> But I'm not surprised in the least that some Nobel laureates are deeply religious. When I worked at a major oil company science & technology facility I knew a lot of scientists with advanced degrees who were also heavily into religion. In fact my high school chemistry teacher was a member of the church session where my family worshiped. But again, that doesn't make it science.





Raeven said:


> My latest reading is that the theoretical math shows exactly that. The universe *can* be created out of nothing. At this point, however, I'd say we're still firmly in "we don't know" territory. And that's the answer to your question. No one *is* ruling out a creator as a possible answer. But that doesn't make it *the* answer, and so far, there has been no *proof* of a creator.



I'd say by looking at Nevada's posts above, there's a _little _ evidence that it's been ruled out, by more than a few.........



Raeven said:


> Since faith doesn't require proof of any kind, I don't understand why believers get so fired up about it.



I think it's only when proof is demanded, absolutely and positively, before the subject can even be broached. That's normally what I see anyhow. :shrug:

At the same time, there are pretty big holes that can be poked into the "scientific" theories, yet it comes across as beneath the level of intelligent discussion because there's no (or not enough) "proof" of God.
A double standard IOW.
The ironic part is I've actually seen/heard people who say that an eyewitness wouldn't even be accepted as proof.
That seems to me to a standard of evidence that can't possibly be met - and not at all a sincere quest for knowledge.
If a personals visit from The Almighty wouldn't convince them, what the heck would? :shrug:


----------



## Raeven

Sorry for my fade in the conversation. My ISP is doing maintenance and I'm having connectivity problems tonight.

*farmrbrown*, there's nothing wrong with a working hypothesis of a creator, so long as that hypothesis adheres to commonly accepted principles of the scientific method. Most of what I see offered as "proof" of a creator in these discussions doesn't, and it's clear that many don't have a good understanding of these principles.

The big problem with the "creator theory" is this: If it starts with a conclusion ("there is a creator"), and then bends all "evidence" to try and suit that conclusion, then it's bad science. In fact, it's the very antithesis of the scientific method. Science *never* starts with a conclusion. 

That's the problem I have with the "creator theory." There's no evidence to even start down such a road. Working hypotheses come from observations. Empirical observations attributed to a creator can be explained by other things -- and those explanations are repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable, which comports with accepted scientific method.

An eyewitness isn't scientific proof. It's legal proof (also often wrong, by the way), but not scientific proof. What someone witnesses is only evidence of what that person *believes* they have seen, and nothing more.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> Those requirements exclude some important theories like the Big Bang and evolution, don't they?
> Those would be hard to repeat, I'm sure.


They're not hard to repeat. Experiments are being carried out all over the world, repeating these things on very small scales. How do you think they proved the Higgs Boson recently?

The Big Bang is only one working theory, albeit the most widely accepted. There are many others, including Brane Theory, Steady-State Universe, Eternal Inflation and Oscillating Universe. Again, science takes us where it takes us.

As for evolution, it's proved. The record can never be complete, but evolution is a fact, even if you choose to not accept it.



farmrbrown said:


> I think a lot of minds have been closed about science being used in the Bible, just as some believers in God refuse to see anything worthwhile in science.


The fact that there are some scientific references in the bible proves... what? I mean, humans knew the earth was round at least 240 BC. The bible didn't predict it, and people knew the earth was round long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue -- and before the bible told them so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> Sorry for my fade in the conversation. My ISP is doing maintenance and I'm having connectivity problems tonight.
> 
> *farmrbrown*, there's nothing wrong with a working hypothesis of a creator, so long as that hypothesis adheres to commonly accepted principles of the scientific method. Most of what I see offered as "proof" of a creator in these discussions doesn't, and it's clear that many don't have a good understanding of these principles.
> 
> The big problem with the "creator theory" is this: If it starts with a conclusion ("there is a creator"), and then bends all "evidence" to try and suit that conclusion, then it's bad science. In fact, it's the very antithesis of the scientific method. Science *never* starts with a conclusion.
> 
> That's the problem I have with the "creator theory." There's no evidence to even start down such a road. Working hypotheses come from observations. Empirical observations attributed to a creator can be explained by other things -- and those explanations are repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable, which comports with accepted scientific method.
> 
> An eyewitness isn't scientific proof. It's legal proof (also often wrong, by the way), but not scientific proof. What someone witnesses is only evidence of what that person *believes* they have seen, and nothing more.


That's an interesting explanation, and I confess I've heard it before.
Theories in the past have fallen apart because of evidence that was made to fit a conclusion.
That, and the eyewitness critique are part of the fallibility of human nature I believe.
When you consider that all observation, even of scientific instruments, is made by a human eye, it drops a small amount of uncertainty into everything we claim to know.


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> They're not hard to repeat. Experiments are being carried out all over the world, repeating these things on very small scales. How do you think they proved the Higgs Boson recently?
> 
> The Big Bang is only one working theory, albeit the most widely accepted. There are many others, including Brane Theory, Steady-State Universe, Eternal Inflation and Oscillating Universe. Again, science takes us where it takes us.
> 
> As for evolution, it's proved. The record can never be complete, but evolution is a fact, even if you choose to not accept it.


I haven't ruled those things out as evidence either, just pointing out that often the standard of proof that is asked of others is higher than what we will accept for ourselves. That's another quirk of human nature too.




Raeven said:


> The fact that there are some scientific references in the bible proves... what?


Only this........


> Where's the science behind scripture?





Raeven said:


> I mean, humans knew the earth was round at least 240 BC. The bible didn't predict it, and people knew the earth was round long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue -- and before the bible told them so.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth



I know. It wasn't to prove the origination of science, just that it isn't totally absent as some might think.
I don't know exactly when the first dinosaur bones were found, but I bet it would be hard to find a reference older than the book of Job, however.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> That's an interesting explanation, and I confess I've heard it before.
> Theories in the past have fallen apart because of evidence that was made to fit a conclusion.
> That, and the eyewitness critique are part of the fallibility of human nature I believe.
> When you consider that all observation, even of scientific instruments, is made by a human eye, it drops a small amount of uncertainty into everything we claim to know.


There are many more ways to "see" and measure than just our very limited sense of sight. That's why we build things like infrared telescopes, atomic clocks, the Hubble and the Hadron collider. In fact, our sense of sight is quite a poor way to &#8220;observe&#8221; the universe. Fortunately, there are better ways.

Ok, tired of rebooting my modem.  Thanks for keeping it civil.


----------



## farmrbrown

Thank you too.


----------



## Txsteader

Raeven said:


> This is where you're entirely wrong. *The scientific method has no interest in proving or disproving a god. *It goes only where evidence leads. If evidence leads to a god, then science would readily accept it. So far, no joy.


At one time, I'd agree with you. But considering the sheer number of articles and 'documentaries' out there trying to disprove God, I'd say that modern science has found itself infected with an agenda(s).


----------



## AmericanStand

Raven, how and when was evolution proved a fact. ? 
I thought it was a theory.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Yes, you have become smarter than God in your mind with all your truths. I get that.





thericeguy said:


> You get what you give. You give me zero respect because of my beliefs. You hide brhind safety in numbers and offer little to no personal beliefs. A lot of people say it is your argument, so prove them wrong. Blah. It is a position of personsl weakness, but then you did say philosophy wasnt your thing. Just got sick of you trashing me.


Gosh, I wonder why I don't want to share my personal beliefs with you anymore.


----------



## greg273

thericeguy said:


> I think I qualify. Take me from primordial slime to humans in 4 billion years and not encounter *a single species on modern history on the verge of an evolution.* Your degrading insinuation about my education does not frighten me.


How would you know if something is on the 'verge of an evolution'?


----------



## greg273

farmrbrown said:


> The Hubble has shown evidence of The Big Bang, which is a commonly accepted scientific theory.
> BUT,* it also means that something (the universe) was created out of nothing.*......which goes AGAINST all scientific theories.
> 
> With no other scientific explanation available to explain how something can come from nothing, why hasn't a "Creator" been accepted as at least a possible answer as a working theory?


 I've never heard one scientist propose that all things came from NOTHING. The big bang theory is that all matter was condensed and then expanded. That is a far cry from 'nothing', in fact the opposite.
As to why a 'creator' hasn't been accepted, I think you'll find many science-types are pro-God, or neutral and undecided. I think this stereotype of the rabid, anti-God atheist scientist is more in your imagination than anything.


----------



## Heritagefarm

AmericanStand said:


> Finally the key question. !
> As a scientist don't you think we should use the theory with the most and highest quality evidence as our main the theory ?
> That would be creation by a higher power.


Aside from the world itself, there is little real evidence of creation. Just think of chihuahuas. They're almost not dogs. I bet it wouldn't take too many years to turn them into something that looked like a mutant rat-dog. (SOrry to any chihuahua lovers)



Raeven said:


> Again, that's someone's hypothesis. He hasn't proved it yet.


This is a great article discussing the parsing of the random-protein argument.. The main issue at hand is that there are a variety of processes for jump starting evolution, not just chance. 

http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life



> The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.
> 
> The calculation which supports the creationist argument begins with the probability of a 300-molecule-long protein forming by total random chance. This would be approximately 1 chance in 10390. This number is astoundingly huge. By comparison, the number of all the atoms in the observable universe is 1080. So, if a simple protein has that unlikely chance of forming, what hope does a complete bacterium


----------



## Heritagefarm

Txsteader said:


> At one time, I'd agree with you. But considering the sheer number of articles and 'documentaries' out there trying to disprove God, I'd say that modern science has found itself infected with an agenda(s).


Maybe, but that agenda would be wrong. Science has no use trying to prove or disprove a negative - that's the way I've often heard it put. Science should work towards explaining other things in a logical and meaningful way. I don't think it was Darwin's intention to lose his religion.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> The time scale required for evolution, if haphazard blind brainless chance were to be its creator, is so enormously large that it boggles the mind of even the most expert mathematician.


Evolution is not "haphazard blind brainless chance," it's guided by conditions. It was not chance that made the beaks of the Galapagos finches change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

If you did it again today their beaks would evolve in the same way. Evolution is guided, just not by an intelligent being.


----------



## Txsteader

Be it evolution or climate change, when I see/hear certain key words, I realize that much that is being put forth as fact is merely speculation.

Key words to watch/listen for:

Assume
Believe
Speculate
Suspect
Hypothesize
Surmise

You get the gist. It's surprising how often these terms are used, once one has trained their eyes/ears to catch them.


----------



## thericeguy

Txsteader said:


> Be it evolution or climate change, when I see/hear certain key words, I realize that much that is being put forth as fact is merely speculation.
> 
> Key words to watch/listen for:
> 
> Assume
> Believe
> Speculate
> Suspect
> Hypothesize
> Surmise
> 
> You get the gist. It's surprising how often these terms are used, once one has trained their eyes/ears to catch them.


My new favorite: Our computer simulations show ...

Wasn't the Terminator movie a computer simulation?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> How can you disprove what has not been proved? It is accepted in masse ONLY because it provides an explanation that does not invoke God. It goes against science. Basic science. And fails logic tests.





farmrbrown said:


> I'd say by looking at Nevada's posts above, there's a _little _ evidence that it's been ruled out, by more than a few.........


Science doesn't rule things out, ever. Science considers evidence. Since there's no evidence of intelligent design there is nothing to consider. What that means is that ID/creationism is always a possibility, if evidence presents itself.

And another thing, science doesn't randomly pick a theory to support. Any theory that's supported with evidence, however thin, is still out there.


----------



## farmrbrown

greg273 said:


> I've never heard one scientist propose that all things came from NOTHING. The big bang theory is that all matter was condensed and then expanded. That is a far cry from 'nothing', in fact the opposite.
> As to why a 'creator' hasn't been accepted, I think you'll find many science-types are pro-God, or neutral and undecided. I think this stereotype of the rabid, anti-God atheist scientist is more in your imagination than anything.


I too, know many scientists that believe in God.
I also believe in rabies, but that does not necessarily have an automatic correlation in my imagination. :grin:

Of course the subject of what happened *before * the big bang has been studied.........it's one of the most profound and *con*founding questions ever.:thumb:

https://www.google.com/search?clien...y&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=big+bang+theory+science



http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html
*Some physicists also suggest that the universe we experience is just one of many. In the "multiverse" model, different universes would coexist with each other like bubbles lying side by side. The theory suggests that in that first big push of inflation, different parts of space-time grew at different rates. This could have carved off different sections &#8212; different universes &#8212; with potentially different laws of physics.

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, a theoretical physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said during a news conference in March 2014 concerning the gravitational waves discovery. (Guth is not affiliated with that study.)

"It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously."

While we can understand how the universe we see came to be, it's possible that the Big Bang was not the first inflationary period the universe experienced. Some scientists believe we live in a cosmos that goes through regular cycles of inflation and deflation, and that we just happen to be living in one of these phases.

- See more at: http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html#sthash.ZKrOrs15.dpuf*



http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang/
*Dark Energy
During the years following Hubble and COBE, the picture of the Big Bang gradually became clearer. But in 1996, observations of very distant supernovae required a dramatic change in the picture. It had always been assumed that the matter of the Universe would slow its rate of expansion. Mass creates gravity, gravity creates pull, the pulling must slow the expansion. But supernovae observations showed that the expansion of the Universe, rather than slowing, is accelerating. Something, not like matter and not like ordinary energy, is pushing the galaxies apart. This "stuff" has been dubbed dark energy, but to give it a name is not to understand it. Whether dark energy is a type of dynamical fluid, heretofore unknown to physics, or whether it is a property of the vacuum of empty space, or whether it is some modification to general relativity is not yet known.*



http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/
*The big bang theory leaves several major questions unanswered. One is the original cause of the big bang itself. Several answers have been proposed to address this fundamental question, but none has been proven&#8212;and even adequately testing them has proven to be a formidable challenge.*




And finally, this.........

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point



*Something From Nothing

A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin&#8217;s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it&#8217;s still the best solution he&#8217;s heard so far: Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all. This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that &#8220;nothing can be created from nothing.&#8221; 

Of course, Lucretius had never heard of quantum mechanics and inflationary cosmology, 20th-century fields that contest his bold claim. &#8220;We usually say that nothing can be created out of nothing because we think it would violate the law of conservation of energy,&#8221; a hallowed principle in physics holding that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, Vilenkin explains. So how could you create a universe with matter in it, where there had been nothing before?

&#8220;The way the universe gets around that problem is that gravitational energy is negative,&#8221; Vilenkin says. That&#8217;s a consequence of the fact, mathematically proven, that the energy of a closed universe is zero: The energy of matter is positive, the energy of gravitation is negative, and they always add up to zero. &#8220;Therefore, creating a closed universe out of nothing does not violate any conservation laws.&#8221; 

Vilenkin&#8217;s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed &#8212; far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that&#8217;s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today. If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself.

One virtue of this picture, if correct, is that the spontaneous creation of our universe gives a definite starting point to things. Time begins at the moment of creation, putting to rest the potentially endless questions about &#8220;what happened before that.&#8221; 

Yet the explanation still leaves a huge mystery unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin&#8217;s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand &#8212; namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time.

That raises some uncomfortable questions: Where did the laws of physics reside before there was a universe to which they could be applied? Do they exist independently of space or time? &#8220;It&#8217;s a great mystery as to where the laws of physics came from. We don&#8217;t even know how to approach it,&#8221; Vilenkin admits. &#8220;But before inflation came along, we didn&#8217;t even know how to approach the questions that inflation later solved. So who knows, maybe we&#8217;ll pass this barrier as well.&#8221;*


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Some physicists also suggest that the universe we experience is just one of many.


I remain skeptical about parallel universes. In the first place, there are other explanations that don't involve other universes. It's just a little bit too convenient to invent other universes to fit observations that are difficult to explain.

I think my skepticism is fair. If I invented other universes to explain one of my theories I would expect skepticism.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Evolution is not "haphazard blind brainless chance," it's* guided* by conditions. It was not chance that made the beaks of the Galapagos finches change.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches
> 
> If you did it again today their beaks would evolve in the same way.*Evolution is guided, just not by an intelligent being*.


OR........it's guided by a being with more intelligence and power than we can comprehend.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> I remain skeptical about parallel universes. In the first place, there are other explanations that don't involve other universes. It's just a little bit too convenient to invent other universes to fit observations that are difficult to explain.
> 
> I think my skepticism is fair. If I invented other universes to explain one of my theories I would expect skepticism.


Now I'm dismayed.
We may always have our differences Nevada, but I've always liked hearing your views and debating with you.
Up until now, I would have bet the farm that you were a Trekie............
:awh:


That was one of the best episodes of Star Trek EVER.
:grin:


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Now I'm dismayed.
> We may always have our differences Nevada, but I've always liked hearing your views and debating with you.
> Up until now, I would have bet the farm that you were a Trekie............
> :awh:
> 
> 
> That was one of the best episodes of Star Trek EVER.
> :grin:


Do you know why parallel universes were suggested in the first place? Do you care? What theory do you subscribe to?

I don't mind someone disagreeing with a theory, but it disturbs me when a theory is discarded without understanding it.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Science doesn't rule things out, ever. Science considers evidence. Since there's no evidence of intelligent design there is nothing to consider. What that means is that ID/creationism is always a possibility, if evidence presents itself.
> 
> And another thing, science doesn't randomly pick a theory to support. Any theory that's supported with evidence, however thin, is still out there.


You are right. Science is a consensus. It is often a best understanding, most plausible, etc. When science deals with topics such as chemistry, there is far less debate. Combine these materials under these conditions and this will be the result. I would use s word to describe this something like hard science. It is the easiest to accept because it is measurable, definable, and predictable. 

Other topics are not as clear cut. Some topics the debates rage on through lifetimes. In the end, until further evidence is discovered that absolutely silences all other evidence, typically a strong revelation of fact, that debate will always go on.

There remains a distinct difference between a fact and an accepted idea, theory, or explanation. A fact would lack any credible arguments against it and would be able to support every step towards the conclusion with underlying data. It would contain zero assumptions, best guesses, estimations, or most likely's. A fact is a fact is a fact. 

Accepted theory can contain all of those things and remain the accepted theory so long as no other theory comes along with better data, guesses, or estimations. To contain estimations or assumptions does not make it wrong. It does make it less than a fact. 

As long as people continue to make statements that life started in this way and evolved in this way, and claim that it is a fact, science has proved it, I will continue to reject. It is not a fact. It is the currently accepted theory, and any number or cultural, philosophical, or societal beliefs could influence the interpretation of data while creating the estimations contained in the theory. 

Creation of life through evolution is not fact. It is a belief. A commonly accepted belief. So are all religious explanations of the origin of life.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Accepted theory can contain all of those things and remain the accepted theory so long as no other theory comes along with better data, guesses, or estimations. To contain estimations or assumptions does not make it wrong. It does make it less than a fact.


A theory is not a fact. Facts are all around us, like what temperature it is or how much something weighs. A theory seeks to explain an observation. It's very different from a fact.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Do you know why parallel universes were suggested in the first place? Do you care? What theory do you subscribe to?
> 
> I don't mind someone disagreeing with a theory, but it disturbs me when a theory is discarded without understanding it.


Of course I do, It was even discussed in the links I posted.
:shrug:

One of the most common and mistaken assumptions made when we (collective WE) discuss such matters, is that somehow the other person must be ignorant, otherwise he/she would *automatically* agree with me.
:umno:


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Of course I do, It was even discussed in the links I posted.
> :shrug:


I didn't see a discussion of subatomic particles in your posts.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> I didn't see a discussion of subatomic particles in your posts.


It was in all of them, even if I didn't copy/paste the whole article. (post #814) The last one in bold, it was mentioned specifically.




> Vilenkin&#8217;s calculations show that a universe created from nothing is likely to be tiny, indeed &#8212; far, far smaller than, say, a proton. Should this minute realm contain just a smattering of repulsive-gravity material, that&#8217;s enough to ensure it will ignite the unstoppable process of eternal inflation, leading to the universe we inhabit today. If the theory holds, we owe our existence to the humblest of origins: nothing itself.




Naturally it takes some time to read thru them, but it's there.:thumb:


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> It was in all of them, even if I didn't copy/paste the whole article. (post #814) The last one in bold, it was mentioned specifically.


Post 143 doesn't discuss quantum mechanics.

But in your own words, what problem does parallel universes seek to explain and why do you think it's wrong?


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Post 143 doesn't discuss quantum mechanics.
> 
> But in your own words, what problem does parallel universes seek to explain and why do you think it's wrong?


Sorry, I already corrected my typo (#814) they were all about quantum physics.
You must have misunderstood me when I kidded you about Star Trek.
I do indeed believe in the possibility of parallel universes or dimensions.
It's about the ONLY way to explain some these unfathomable subjects, don't you agree?

ETA
In my own words?
Because the conclusion that scientists are trying to come to, violates the laws of physics that we have rested so assuredly upon.

The only way to do THAT is to have a parallel universe where OUR laws of physics ain't the same as THEIRS.
LOL.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> It was in all of them, even if I didn't copy/paste the whole article. (post #814) The last one in bold, it was mentioned specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naturally it takes some time to read thru them, but it's there.:thumb:


So the question again; why do you question parallel universes? Why don't you think it's a reasonable explanation, and what do you think is really going on?


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> So the question again; why do you question parallel universes? Why don't you think it's a reasonable explanation, and what do you think is really going on?


Once again, I may question many things, but I don't believe I said or implied that I doubted there could be parallel universes, just the opposite.




farmrbrown said:


> Sorry, I already corrected my typo (#814) they were all about quantum physics.
> You must have misunderstood me when I kidded you about Star Trek.
> *I do indeed believe in the possibility of parallel universes or dimensions.*
> It's about the ONLY way to explain some these unfathomable subjects, don't you agree?
> 
> ETA
> In my own words?
> Because the conclusion that scientists are trying to come to, violates the laws of physics that we have rested so assuredly upon.
> 
> The only way to do THAT is to have a parallel universe where OUR laws of physics ain't the same as THEIRS.
> LOL.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Once again, I may question many things, but I don't believe I said or implied that I doubted there could be parallel universes.


So you buy into the parallel universe theory? I have to admit, while it isn't really my corner of science, I remain skeptical.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> So you buy into the parallel universe theory?


Yes sir.

But I'm a simple man with many interests.

Quantum physics is just a hobby, not what puts food on my table.



*I see we're alike in that respect too, LOL*



> I have to admit, while it isn't really my corner of science, I remain skeptical.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Yes sir.
> 
> But I'm a simple man with many interests.
> 
> Quantum physics is just a hobby, not what puts food on my table.
> 
> 
> 
> *I see we're alike in that respect too, LOL*


The fact that scientists can't detect some subatomic particles all the time doesn't necessarily prove that they're blipping in and out of parallel universes. I believe there are other reasonable explanations.

First, the analytical method might be flawed. It's possible that the particles are still there, but just aren't being detected all the time. Second, it's possible that there are things we don't fully understand about the nature of subatomic particles that might explain them not always being detected.

Finally, as I said before, inventing parallel universes to explain something we don't understand is just a little too convenient for my taste. They get away with it because parallel universes can't be disproved. I'm not comfortable with that.

It's ok to disagree with a scientific theory, as long as you have good reason to disagree. But I enjoyed Big Bang's take on parallel universes. 

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iZiqPZzg2o[/ame]


----------



## Raeven

AmericanStand said:


> Raven, how and when was evolution proved a fact. ?
> I thought it was a theory.





Nevada said:


> A theory is not a fact. Facts are all around us, like what temperature it is or how much something weighs. A theory seeks to explain an observation. It's very different from a fact.


Let's get clear about what I mean when I say a theory is a fact for all practical purposes. In science, the word, 'theory,' has a very specific meaning. Here are 2 quick definitions from Wiki, quoting 2 organizations of scientists:

_Definitions from scientific organizations:_

_The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:_

_ The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed._

_From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:_

_ A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. *Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.*_

The word, 'theory,' gets thrown around very liberally with a lot of incorrect meanings attached. We have to distinguish between the factual, evidentiary phenomenon and the totality of the theory -- which can never be ultimately proved. That doesn't make the factual phenomenon false. 

That's what I mean when I say that theories are facts that simply can't be ultimately proved. We rely on them every single day to do exactly what we theorize they will do. When someone says, "It's just a theory," they are demonstrating they don't understand the full meaning of the term within the scientific definition.


----------



## Raeven

Txsteader said:


> At one time, I'd agree with you. But considering the sheer number of articles and 'documentaries' out there trying to disprove God, I'd say that modern science has found itself infected with an agenda(s).


Here's what I've observed: When someone says, "What about God?" Science responds, "Sorry, no evidence for that to date." All the while, evidence continues to mount for explanations that require no god. People who believe in a god tend to respond to this as science trying to disprove God, but it's not. The distinction is a big and important one. I've never heard a scientist say, "There is no God." I've heard many scientists say, "We've yet to find any evidence for God." That's not really science's fault, is it?

Any article or 'documentary' that is trying to disprove God is erroneous on its face. Science doesn't try to prove or disprove anything for which there is no observable evidence as a starting place.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> The word, 'theory,' gets thrown around very liberally with a lot of incorrect meanings attached. We have to distinguish between the factual, evidentiary phenomenon and the totality of the theory -- which can never be ultimately proved. That doesn't make the factual phenomenon false.
> 
> That's what I mean when I say that theories are facts that simply can't be ultimately proved. We rely on them every single day to do exactly what we theorize they will do. When someone says, "It's just a theory," they are demonstrating they don't understand the full meaning of the term within the scientific definition.


What I have a problem with is the actual data used to create the consensus, and since the consensus becomes the basis of fact rather than the data itself, it becomes unapproachable. In simpler words, your data cannot be right because more of us believe this set of data than your set of data. This dismissive attitude does not further science, but hinders it.

Mentally, I separate the idea of evolution of life forms from the creation of life through evolution. They do not rely on the same principles. An animal with a mutation which gives them a benefit to exploit resources better than their comppetitors for resources can and should persist. They are a superior individual. Natural selection of individuals, given sufficient time, will alter the typical member of a population by this process.

This is fundamentally different than saying amino acids and proteins would coalesce into a life form naturally. Since there is no natural resource to exploit, why would this occur? A simple organism has far simpler needs for survival than a complex organism, thus increasing its statistical chances for survival. Why would simple organisms merge with other simple organisms to form a new more complex organism when that would decrease their chances of survival?

This consensus about the spontaneous creation of life, which has now gained the ability to deflect any and all evidence against it, not based upon the data, but upon the number of people who accept it, remains unproven, is backed by unknown conditions. There are HUGE leaps of faith to go from finding related species today, to a fossil record, to the moment life began. And to me, that is a belief system not unlike religion, because neither can document the claims.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Txsteader said:


> At one time, I'd agree with you. But considering the sheer number of articles and 'documentaries' out there trying to disprove God, I'd say that modern science has found itself infected with an agenda(s).


Articles and documentaries are the products of individuals, not "science".
There's no need to disprove something that's never been proven in the first place


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> What I have a problem with is the actual data used to create the consensus, and since the consensus becomes the basis of fact rather than the data itself, it becomes unapproachable. In simpler words, your data cannot be right because more of us believe this set of data than your set of data. This dismissive attitude does not further science, but hinders it.


You mischaracterize the process. You make it sound as if scientific theory is accepted or rejected on the basis of popular vote. That's not how it works at all.

The process of peer review is to publish a finding in a way that people in that scientific field will see it, ask questions about it, and criticize it. There is never a time when a popular vote is taken. The best indication of acceptance is when other people refer to your work as a reference for their own work.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> What I have a problem with is the actual data used to create the consensus, and since the consensus becomes the basis of fact rather than the data itself, it becomes unapproachable. In simpler words, your data cannot be right because more of us believe this set of data than your set of data. This dismissive attitude does not further science, but hinders it.
> 
> Mentally, I separate the idea of evolution of life forms from the creation of life through evolution. They do not rely on the same principles. An animal with a mutation which gives them a benefit to exploit resources better than their comppetitors for resources can and should persist. They are a superior individual. Natural selection of individuals, given sufficient time, will alter the typical member of a population by this process.
> 
> This is fundamentally different than saying amino acids and proteins would coalesce into a life form naturally. Since there is no natural resource to exploit, why would this occur? A simple organism has far simpler needs for survival than a complex organism, thus increasing its statistical chances for survival. Why would simple organisms merge with other simple organisms to form a new more complex organism when that would decrease their chances of survival?
> 
> This consensus about the spontaneous creation of life, which has now gained the ability to deflect any and all evidence against it, not based upon the data, but upon the number of people who accept it, remains unproven, is backed by unknown conditions. There are HUGE leaps of faith to go from finding related species today, to a fossil record, to the moment life began. And to me, that is a belief system not unlike religion, because neither can document the claims.


I think there is a vast difference between being dismissive and saying, "We don't know. Yet." What I don't think someone can get away with is, "Because God."

I agree that the origin of eucaryotes is elusive and unlikely to ever be proved by the fossil record. It's a study in its infancy. That doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it right, either. It makes it incomplete and untested to date. But it's promising research, and it may well be borne out eventually. I saw a really interesting program about it recently, wish I could remember which. Fascinating stuff.

I'm not sure the question of 'why' can ever be answered. There's what is factually true, there is what is factually untrue, and there is what is unknown. The 'why' never enters into it, really. Maybe it will one day.

http://news.wisc.edu/new-theory-suggests-alternate-path-led-to-rise-of-the-eukaryotic-cell/


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> You mischaracterize the process. You make it sound as if scientific theory is accepted or rejected on the basis of popular vote. That's not how it works at all.
> 
> The process of peer review is to publish a finding in a way that people in that scientific field will see it, ask questions about it, and criticize it. There is never a time when a popular vote is taken. The best indication of acceptance is when other people refer to your work as a reference for their own work.


Can you show me a white paper detailing the conditions of early earth, with a primordial soup, and the process by which that soup became life which can reproduce. I have never seen this rallying cry paper. It just evolved like the theory.

There is no data suggesting the conditions of early Earth. There is no data suggesting the conditions which formed life. Earlier someone noted that science does not start with a conclusion like religion, therefor it is different. What did a scientist find that suggested there even was a primordial soup that did not start with a conclusion. Perhaps some ice sample, or fossil, or anything.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Can you show me a white paper detailing the conditions of early earth, with a primordial soup, and the process by which that soup became life which can reproduce. I have never seen this rallying cry paper. It just evolved like the theory.
> 
> There is no data suggesting the conditions of early Earth. There is no data suggesting the conditions which formed life. Earlier someone noted that science does not start with a conclusion like religion, therefor it is different. What did a scientist find that suggested there even was a primordial soup that did not start with a conclusion. Perhaps some ice sample, or fossil, or anything.


Well, obviously when we set out to answer the question of where life came from we have to start with the conclusion that we're here. There's nothing unreasonable about that.

Speculation about the conditions that need to exist to form life is also fair. Could there have been primordial soup present from natural causes? Sure, there could. Could a deity have done it? We've never see a deity, but we have seen primordial soup conditions. We have to go with observations in science.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> I think there is a vast difference between being dismissive and saying, "We don't know. Yet." What I don't think someone can get away with is, "Because God."
> 
> I agree that the origin of eucaryotes is elusive and unlikely to ever be proved by the fossil record. It's a study in its infancy. That doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it right, either. It makes it incomplete and untested to date. But it's promising research, and it may well be borne out eventually. I saw a really interesting program about it recently, wish I could remember which. Fascinating stuff.
> 
> I'm not sure the question of 'why' can ever be answered. There's what is factually true, there is what is factually untrue, and there is what is unknown. The 'why' never enters into it, really. Maybe it will one day.
> 
> http://news.wisc.edu/new-theory-suggests-alternate-path-led-to-rise-of-the-eukaryotic-cell/


In that link, it clearly presents my argument. Very little research has been done to show any data to answer those questions, yet it appears you and others put forward the spontaneous creation of life as an undeniable fact proven by science. Anything less than agreement labels you someone who doesn't understand, cannot get it, religious fanatic, etc.

âThe current theory is widely accepted, but I would not say it is âestablishedâ since nobody seems to have seriously considered alternative explanations,â explains David Baum, a University of WisconsinâMadison professor of botany and evolutionary biologist who, with his cousin, University College London cell biologist Buzz Baum, has formulated a new theory for how eukaryotic cells evolved. - See more at: http://news.wisc.edu/new-theory-sug...-of-the-eukaryotic-cell/#sthash.0pMtrKz3.dpuf

The theory has taken on a life of its own, unassailable by the shear number of people who believe it and for facts that do not even exist. How is this different than religion?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Well, obviously when we set out to answer the question of where life came from we have to start with the conclusion that we're here. There's nothing unreasonable about that.
> 
> Speculation about the conditions that need to exist to form life is also fair. Could there have been primordial soup present from natural causes? Sure, there could. Could a deity have done it? We've never see a deity, but we have seen primordial soup conditions. We have to go with observations in science.


I believe it was you who argued that the bible could not contain an error because then all religion would unravel. You suggested that the belied in God caused people to twist the words of the Bible to reflect the existence of God. Would that be a fair characterization?

We know what DNA is. We know the amino acids that make it. Someone decided, based on that, there was an environment that held those "building blocks", and for unexplained reasons it became life. I call that a backwards looking outcome driven belief. It should not be part of science. It has no basis in fact. We should continue the search. In the meantime, the answer should be "we have no great ideas".

Now truly, how far apart are religion and science on creation of life?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> What I have a problem with is the actual data used to create the consensus, and since *the consensus becomes the basis of fact rather than the data itself*, it becomes unapproachable. In simpler words, your data cannot be right because more of us believe this set of data than your set of data. This dismissive attitude does not further science, but hinders it.


You mean like when some say "God exists because 84% of people think god exists"?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> I believe it was you who argued that the bible could not contain an error because then all religion would unravel. You suggested that the belied in God caused people to twist the words of the Bible to reflect the existence of God. Would that be a fair characterization?
> 
> We know what DNA is. We know the amino acids that make it. Someone decided, based on that, there was an environment that held those "building blocks", and for unexplained reasons it became life. I call that a backwards looking outcome driven belief. It should not be part of science. It has no basis in fact.
> 
> Now truly, how far apart are religion and science on creation of life?


We can prove the existence of DNA and amino acids, but we can't prove the existence of a deity.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> I'm not sure the question of 'why' can ever be answered.


That is the stuff of theology.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> We can prove the existence of DNS and amino acids, but we can't prove the existence of a deity.


Can you relate that in a meaningful way to what you quoted? How does science go into the past and conjecture about how something happened and call it "fact" based upon the number of people who believe it, but religion cannot do the same and be judged on the same criteria? NOWHERE have I attempted to prove the existence of God in this line of thoughts.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Can you relate that in a meaningful way to what you quoted? How does science go into the past and conjecture about how something happened and call it "fact" based upon the number of people who believe it, but religion cannot do the same and be judged on the same criteria? NOWHERE have I attempted to prove the existence of God in this line of thoughts.


If you can't prove the existence of God then how do you expect the scientific community to accept that God created life, or anything else for that matter?


----------



## Raeven

Raeven said:


> I think there is a vast difference between being dismissive and saying, "We don't know. Yet." What I don't think someone can get away with is, "Because God."
> 
> I* agree that the origin of eucaryotes is elusive and unlikely to ever be proved by the fossil record. It's a study in its infancy. That doesn't make it wrong. It doesn't make it right, either. It makes it incomplete and untested to date.* But it's promising research, and it may well be borne out eventually. I saw a really interesting program about it recently, wish I could remember which. Fascinating stuff.
> 
> I'm not sure the question of 'why' can ever be answered. There's what is factually true, there is what is factually untrue, and there is what is unknown. The 'why' never enters into it, really. Maybe it will one day.
> 
> http://news.wisc.edu/new-theory-suggests-alternate-path-led-to-rise-of-the-eukaryotic-cell/





thericeguy said:


> In that link, it clearly presents my argument. Very little research has been done to show any data to answer those questions, *yet it appears you* and others *put forward the spontaneous creation of life as an undeniable fact proven by science*. Anything less than agreement labels you someone who doesn't understand, cannot get it, religious fanatic, etc.
> 
> âThe current theory is widely accepted, but I would not say it is âestablishedâ since nobody seems to have seriously considered alternative explanations,â explains David Baum, a University of WisconsinâMadison professor of botany and evolutionary biologist who, with his cousin, University College London cell biologist Buzz Baum, has formulated a new theory for how eukaryotic cells evolved. - See more at: http://news.wisc.edu/new-theory-sug...-of-the-eukaryotic-cell/#sthash.0pMtrKz3.dpuf
> 
> The theory has taken on a life of its own, unassailable by the shear number of people who believe it and for facts that do not even exist. How is this different than religion?


Clearly, you didn't read my response. Please stop cherry-picking my responses and the parts of the article which I absolutely allowed for in my response. I could not have stated it more unequivocally. Further, stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> That is the stuff of theology.


Which isn't science.


----------



## joebill

I always enjoy the folks who state that others "do not believe in science", because in many, not all, cases their suppositions are presented as "science" while all other suppositions are not. man made global warming is a good example.

As a young guy, I enjoyed reading a lot of Asimov, and later when he had his science fiction magazine and was accepting and rejecting stories based on which he truly felt were science fiction and which were not, he was asked to define science fiction once and for all.

His answer was;

"Science friction is that which I indicate with my hand when I say "this is science fiction"

I always label those who have promoted scares like global winter, the population bomb, man made global warming, along with their trumped-up "consensus" as folks with an "Asimov complex"

"science is that which I indicate with my hand when I say "this is science"...........Joe


----------



## Nevada

joebill said:


> I always enjoy the folks who state that others "do not believe in science"


Interestingly, we have members here who openly admit that they don't believe in science, and even wear it as a badge of honor. Some even seem to believe that the scientific community is a vast left-wing conspiracy with the objective of taxing big business and discrediting Christianity.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> If you can't prove the existence of God then how do you expect the scientific community to accept that God created life, or anything else for that matter?


I have made mo such assertion, have I? You are doing that thing where uou avoid the things I do say and assign things I did not.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> Clearly, you didn't read my response. Please stop cherry-picking my responses and the parts of the article which I absolutely allowed for in my response. I could not have stated it more unequivocally. Further, stop putting words in my mouth.


Is the creation of life without the intervention of a diety or diety like figure a science fact?


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> Is the creation of life without the intervention of a diety or diety like figure a science fact?


 Show me evidence for a deity and/or a deity-like figure and Iâll keep you posted. Until such evidence can be demonstrated in a scientific way, itâs a meaningless question for science.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> Show me evidence for a deity and/or a deity-like figure and Iâll keep you posted. Until such evidence can be demonstrated in a scientific way, itâs a meaningless question for science.


Well, in the space of a few posts, you have wuoted a definition that ends with evolution is a scientific fact. 

When I point out it fails scientific standards to be a fact, pointing to your very link, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth. 

When I ask you a simple clarification of your position, you deflect the question demanding proof of God. 

I would have to liken that same pattern of behaviour to a cult. A religious cult. When you ask me direct questions about my faith, I answer them directly, the best that I can. You are not doing the same. Neither is Nevada. 

Its a simple debate. You say what you believe. I say what I believe. We noth critique the others position. 

I answer because I believe what I believe for real reasons and do not fear someone destroying those beliefs with evidence. I do not fear the wuestions. It leaves me wondering why all the people touting the facts of science do not want to engage in the debate.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> Well, in the space of a few posts, you have wuoted a definition that ends with evolution is a scientific fact.
> 
> When I point out it fails scientific standards to be a fact, pointing to your very link, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth.
> 
> When I ask you a simple clarification of your position, you deflect the question demanding proof of God.
> 
> I would have to liken that same pattern of behaviour to a cult. A religious cult. When you ask me direct questions about my faith, I answer them directly, the best that I can. You are not doing the same. Neither is Nevada.
> 
> Its a simple debate. You say what you believe. I say what I believe. We noth critique the others position.
> 
> I answer because I believe what I believe for real reasons and do not fear someone destroying those beliefs with evidence. I do not fear the wuestions. It leaves me wondering why all the people touting the facts of science do not want to engage in the debate.


Okay.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Well, in the space of a few posts, you have wuoted a definition that ends with evolution is a scientific fact.


Science doesn't raise a theory to a fact, or even to a law. That's not the way it works. Theories, laws, and facts are all very different things. This is the approximate breakdown.

*Fact:* Little bits of information gathered to study something. These are things like temperatures, pressures, weights, and the like.
*Law:* A scientific law describes a behavior, but does not explain how it works. Laws are usually presented in the form of a mathematical formula. An example is the law of gravity. It tells you what you can expect gravity to do to an object in numerical terms, but doesn't attempt to explain how and why gravity works.
*Theory:* A theory explains a scientific behavior and how it works.

Of the three, theories are the most interesting. During development both laws and theories are supported by facts, but they never become facts. So to be clear, a theory is never going to graduate into becoming a law or fact through additional proof or acceptance. To suggest that is just plain false.

So once and for all, *a theory will never become a law and will never become a fact*. A theory is a theory, and is different from a law or a fact.



thericeguy said:


> When I point out it fails scientific standards to be a fact, pointing to your very link, you accuse me of putting words in your mouth.


What is the standard for becoming a scientific fact? Can you give me an example of something that's become a scientific fact? Can you give me a link to a reference that explains the standard for a scientific fact?


----------



## joebill

Nevada said:


> Interestingly, we have members here who openly admit that they don't believe in science, and even wear it as a badge of honor. Some even seem to believe that the scientific community is a vast left-wing conspiracy with the objective of taxing big business and discrediting Christianity.


I prob'ly missed most of thosre posts, but the ones I rememmber were stating that they did not believe that everything presented as "science" was, indeed, Science.

A good example would be the statement that man made global warming is "settled science" and that 97% of scientists agree. When those kind of statements are thrown out there, it discredits scientists and makes people mistrust those who make "scientific" claims.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

The percentage claim is obviously untrue and misleading, and as time moves on, the predictions of the 1990's become more and more laughable. Even many of those who believe it may be real find not much evidence that we could do anything about it or that we NEED to do anything about it.

These tactics are horrible roadblocks to the serious advancement of human knowlege, because most depends in one way or another on public support and funding. It seems that this part of the "scientific" community has found a route around peer review;

Buy off the ones you can with grants and funding and lie about the rest. Does not do true "science" much good in the long run.

As to the creation of life, I like this story;

One day in the future, science and God decide to reconcile, each understanding that the other exists and has it's place. They have a meeting and the scientist says;

You are obviously real, but you are obsolete. i can now create life from a handfull of dirt, just like you did"

God says "proceed"

Scientist bends over to scoop up a handfull of dirt, but God stops him, says'


"You can't use my dirt, you have to make your own!"

By the very nature of the God whom I believe to exist, the creation of life could or could not have been accomplished by a natural act, God being a supernatural being. Not a thing that can be proven either way, the opportunity having long passed us by. Thankfully, we are not a jury, and neither God nor science will live or die by our vote. Each of us will go to our grave with our opinion clutched firmly, confident we are correct.

I have no idea how many scientists or angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I know there are many believers amongst scientists and lots of devout Christians who believe in science. I certainly believe in both, but I also believe that the liars and exagerators in both camps do themselves a great disservice.......and yes, both camps have them.......Joe


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> You mischaracterize the process. You make it sound as if scientific theory is accepted or rejected on the basis of popular vote. That's not how it works at all.
> 
> The process of peer review is to publish a finding in a way that people in that scientific field will see it, ask questions about it, and criticize it. There is never a time when a popular vote is taken. The best indication of acceptance is when other people refer to your work as a reference for their own work.




While it's true, they don't pass out ballots worldwide and take a vote, peer review is a significant component and certain publications and journals play a major role in forming that "consensus".
It can sometimes be a formal agreement declared by a national or international association of scientists, or it might be more informal - an acknowledgement over time within that field.
:nerd:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus




Bearfootfarm said:


> You mean like when some say "God exists because 84% of people think god exists"?




Yeah, something like that.................. :bdh:

Unfortunately, God doesn't allow Himself to be put in a box, carried to a lab and dissected for the benefit of science.
That WOULD be convenient and help in the search for "proof", but in His case, the study, evidence and conclusions aren't limited to an exclusive group of educated elite.
It is an open invitation to all. No degree, no tenure, no Nobel prize required. You don't need any expensive lab equipment or a NASA rocket.
All you need is a willing heart.

That may be why some are baffled by not being able to fin d any "proof".
They are looking in all the wrong ways, in all the wrong places.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> The fact that scientists can't detect some subatomic particles all the time doesn't necessarily prove that they're blipping in and out of parallel universes. I believe there are other reasonable explanations.
> 
> First, the analytical method might be flawed. It's possible that the particles are still there, but just aren't being detected all the time. Second, it's possible that there are things we don't fully understand about the nature of subatomic particles that might explain them not always being detected.
> 
> Finally, as I said before, inventing parallel universes to explain something we don't understand is just a little too convenient for my taste. They get away with it because parallel universes can't be disproved. I'm not comfortable with that.
> 
> It's ok to disagree with a scientific theory, as long as you have good reason to disagree. But I enjoyed Big Bang's take on parallel universes.



There are many reasons for the theory of parallel universes, undetected particles is just one.

http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html


*"There are at least five theories why a multiverse is possible, as a 2012 Space.com article explained

1. We don't know what the shape of space-time is exactly. One prominent theory is that it is flat and goes on forever. This would present the possibility of many universes being out there. But with that topic in mind, it's possible that universes can start repeating themselves. That's because particles can only be put together in so many ways. More about that in a moment.

2. Another theory for multiple universes comes from "eternal inflation." Based on research from Tufts University cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, when looking at space-time as a whole, some areas of space stop inflating like the Big Bang inflated our own universe. Others, however, will keep getting larger. So if we picture our own universe as a bubble, it is sitting in a network of bubble universes of space. What's interesting about this theory is the other universes could have very different laws of physics than our own, since they are not linked.

3. Or perhaps multiple universes can follow the theory of quantum mechanics (how subatomic particles behave), as part of the "daughter universe" theory. If you follow the laws of probability, it suggests that for every outcome that could come from one of your decisions, there would be a range of universes &#8212; each of which saw one outcome come to be. So in one universe, you took that job to China. In another, perhaps you were on your way and your plane landed somewhere different, and you decided to stay. And so on. 

4. Another possible avenue is exploring mathematical universes, which, simply put, explain that the structure of mathematics may change depending in which universe you reside. "A mathematical structure is something that you can describe in a way that's completely independent of human baggage," said theory-proposer Max Tegmark of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as quoted in the 2012 article. "I really believe that there is this universe out there that can exist independently of me that would continue to exist even if there were no humans."

5. And last but not least as the idea of parallel universes. To go back to the idea that space-time is flat, the number of possible particle configurations in multiple universes would be limited to 10^10^122 distinct possibilities, to be exact. So, with an infinite number of cosmic patches, the particle arrangements within them must repeat &#8212; infinitely many times over. This means there are infinitely many "parallel universes": cosmic patches exactly the same as ours (containing someone exactly like you), as well as patches that differ by just one particle's position, patches that differ by two particles' positions, and so on down to patches that are totally different from ours."*

- See more at: http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html#sthash.2Mf4VsWU.dpuf


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> There are many reasons for the theory of parallel universes, undetected particles is just one.


But I wonder, if I develop a theory that I can't explain, can I invent alternative universes that support my theory?


----------



## farmrbrown

joebill said:


> I prob'ly missed most of thosre posts, but the ones I rememmber were stating that they did not believe that everything presented as "science" was, indeed, Science.
> 
> A good example would be the statement that man made global warming is "settled science" and that 97% of scientists agree. When those kind of statements are thrown out there, it discredits scientists and makes people mistrust those who make "scientific" claims.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
> 
> The percentage claim is obviously untrue and misleading, and as time moves on, the predictions of the 1990's become more and more laughable. Even many of those who believe it may be real find not much evidence that we could do anything about it or that we NEED to do anything about it.
> 
> These tactics are horrible roadblocks to the serious advancement of human knowlege, because most depends in one way or another on public support and funding. It seems that this part of the "scientific" community has found a route around peer review;
> 
> Buy off the ones you can with grants and funding and lie about the rest. Does not do true "science" much good in the long run.
> 
> As to the creation of life, I like this story;
> 
> One day in the future, science and God decide to reconcile, each understanding that the other exists and has it's place. They have a meeting and the scientist says;
> 
> You are obviously real, but you are obsolete. i can now create life from a handfull of dirt, just like you did"
> 
> God says "proceed"
> 
> Scientist bends over to scoop up a handfull of dirt, but God stops him, says'
> 
> 
> "You can't use my dirt, you have to make your own!"
> 
> By the very nature of the God whom I believe to exist, the creation of life could or could not have been accomplished by a natural act, God being a supernatural being. Not a thing that can be proven either way, the opportunity having long passed us by. Thankfully, we are not a jury, and neither God nor science will live or die by our vote. Each of us will go to our grave with our opinion clutched firmly, confident we are correct.
> 
> I have no idea how many scientists or angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I know there are many believers amongst scientists and lots of devout Christians who believe in science. I certainly believe in both, but I also believe that the liars and exagerators in both camps do themselves a great disservice.......and yes, both camps have them.......Joe



I've been thinking about that joke during the last few days of this thread.
Thanks, it's one of my favorites.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> But I wonder, if I develop a theory that I can't explain, can I invent alternative universes that support my theory?


Sure, I don't know who would stop you.

One of the most liberating and yet frustrating and confusing gifts that our Creator bestowed upon us...........is free will.
:


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> Let's get clear about what I mean when I say a theory is a fact for all practical purposes. In science, the word, 'theory,' has a very specific meaning. Here are 2 quick definitions from Wiki, quoting 2 organizations of scientists:
> 
> _Definitions from scientific organizations:_
> 
> _The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:_
> 
> _ The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed._
> 
> _From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:_
> 
> _ A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. *Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.*_
> 
> The word, 'theory,' gets thrown around very liberally with a lot of incorrect meanings attached. We have to distinguish between the factual, evidentiary phenomenon and the totality of the theory -- which can never be ultimately proved. That doesn't make the factual phenomenon false.
> 
> That's what I mean when I say that theories are facts that simply can't be ultimately proved. We rely on them every single day to do exactly what we theorize they will do. When someone says, "It's just a theory," they are demonstrating they don't understand the full meaning of the term within the scientific definition.





Nevada said:


> Science doesn't raise a theory to a fact, or even to a law. That's not the way it works. Theories, laws, and facts are all very different things. This is the approximate breakdown.
> 
> *Fact:* Little bits of information gathered to study something. These are things like temperatures, pressures, weights, and the like.
> *Law:* A scientific law describes a behavior, but does not explain how it works. Laws are usually presented in the form of a mathematical formula. An example is the law of gravity. It tells you what you can expect gravity to do to an object in numerical terms, but doesn't attempt to explain how and why gravity works.
> *Theory:* A theory explains a scientific behavior and how it works.
> 
> Of the three, theories are the most interesting. During development both laws and theories are supported by facts, but they never become facts. So to be clear, a theory is never going to graduate into becoming a law or fact through additional proof or acceptance. To suggest that is just plain false.
> 
> So once and for all, *a theory will never become a law and will never become a fact*. A theory is a theory, and is different from a law or a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the standard for becoming a scientific fact? Can you give me an example of something that's become a scientific fact? Can you give me a link to a reference that explains the standard for a scientific fact?


Look at the last sentence to the second definition. Evolution is a fact. Someone touting scientific facts said that. When questioned, ran away with the football. I didnt see uou calling out your fellow scientist for stating a clearly poorly understood snd marginally researched theory (they proved that themselved) as having made sn incorrect unscientific statement. Again, I see it as vult like behaviour, with a strong sense of us vs them. 

Facts are facts are facts. Spontaneous creation of life is no more valid that biblical creation. Neither have a single shred of evidence.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> Unfortunately, God doesn't allow Himself to be put in a box, carried to a lab and dissected for the benefit of science.
> That WOULD be convenient and help in the search for "proof", but in His case, the study, evidence and conclusions aren't limited to an exclusive group of educated elite.
> It is an open invitation to all. No degree, no tenure, no Nobel prize required. You don't need any expensive lab equipment or a NASA rocket.
> All you need is a willing heart.
> 
> That may be why some are baffled by not being able to fin d any "proof".
> They are looking in all the wrong ways, in all the wrong places.


You seem to be saying that unless one finds a god, one is living their life all wrong. That they are somehow deficient. Is that what you're saying?

You also seem to be saying that non-believers are willfully working hard to deny your god. They're not. It's simply not relevant to their lives. I have no need to deny what I have no reason to believe. I'm not an anti-theist. I'm an atheist, meaning without belief in a god. I don't care what you or others believe. If a god works for you, that's cool. But they don't work for me.

Moreover, your comments don't explain quite a lot of people -- and I do personally know a lot of them -- who once believed but no longer do. In many cases, they tried harder than you can imagine to stick with their faith and ultimately just could not. They agonized over it. They lost their families for it. Were their hearts just not willing enough?

I'm happy to share that *all* of the folks I know who are no longer religious feel much more at peace and are happier now. But that's a bad thing, somehow? Don't you know *any* decent non-believers?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Look at the last sentence to the second definition. Evolution is a fact. Someone touting scientific facts said that. When questioned, ran away with the football. I didnt see uou calling out your fellow scientist for stating a clearly poorly understood snd marginally researched theory (they proved that themselved) as having made sn incorrect unscientific statement. Again, I see it as vult like behaviour, with a strong sense of us vs them.
> 
> Facts are facts are facts. Spontaneous creation of life is no more valid that biblical creation. Neither have a single shred of evidence.


You didn't provide a link to scientific facts, or even evolution being a fact. You'll have to do better than "someone touting scientific facts."


----------



## Irish Pixie

Raeven said:


> You seem to be saying that unless one finds a god, one is living their life all wrong. That they are somehow deficient. Is that what you're saying?
> 
> You also seem to be saying that non-believers are willfully working hard to deny your god. They're not. It's simply not relevant to their lives. I have no need to deny what I have no reason to believe. I'm not an anti-theist. I'm an atheist, meaning without belief in a god. I don't care what you or others believe. If a god works for you, that's cool. But they don't work for me.
> 
> Moreover, your comments don't explain quite a lot of people -- and I do personally know a lot of them -- who once believed but no longer do. In many cases, they tried harder than you can imagine to stick with their faith and ultimately just could not. They agonized over it. They lost their families for it. Were their hearts just not willing enough?
> 
> I'm happy to share that *all* of the folks I know who are no longer religious feel much more at peace and are happier now. But that's a bad thing, somehow? Don't you know *any* decent non-believers?


Excellent post. Thank you.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Nevada said:


> You didn't provide a link to scientific facts, or even evolution being a fact. You'll have to do better than "someone touting scientific facts."


You'd think, huh? But sadly the answer is no.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> Look at the last sentence to the second definition. Evolution is a fact. Someone touting scientific facts said that. When questioned, ran away with the football. I didnt see uou calling out your fellow scientist for stating a clearly poorly understood snd marginally researched theory (they proved that themselved) as having made sn incorrect unscientific statement. Again, I see it as vult like behaviour, with a strong sense of us vs them.
> 
> Facts are facts are facts. Spontaneous creation of life is no more valid that biblical creation. Neither have a single shred of evidence.


*Nevada* and I were saying the same thing, so no need for him to "call me out." You simply don't seem able to draw the distinction I made in the quotes I shared, so I saw no reason to carry on the discussion with you. *Nevada*'s definitions are much better stated, and I concur with them completely.

The *phenomenon* is the fact. People often confuse it with the *theory*, such as when they say, "evolution is just a theory." The *phenomenon* of evolution is a *fact*, even if you don't grasp the distinction.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> You didn't provide a link to scientific facts, or even evolution being a fact. You'll have to do better than "someone touting scientific facts."


Linking the statement by a "scientist" that clearly states evolution is a scientific fact, is not proof that they said evolution was a scientific fact? What do you need? A notarized youtube video with a dna signature?

I ask you, is the creation of life without intervention on the part of anyone or anything a scientific fact?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Linking the statement by a "scientist" that clearly states evolution is a scientific fact, is not proof that they said evolution was a scientific fact? What do you need? A notarized youtube video with a dna signature?
> 
> I ask you, is the creation of life without intervention on the part of anyone or anything a scientific fact?


If we're going to pay word games, and you'll be holding us to precise definitions, I think it's fair to ask for the definition for a scientific fact. Once I see the definition I'll decide.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> If we're going to pay word games, and you'll be holding us to precise definitions, I think it's fair to ask for the definition for a scientific fact. Once I see the definition I'll decide.


We can use the definition you posted a little back. I accept that definition.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> We can use the definition you posted a little back. I accept that definition.


Then it's a theory.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> *Fact:* Little bits of information gathered to study something. These are things like temperatures, pressures, weights, and the like.


Notice, Raeven, that every one of the examples given is a measurable quantifiable value. You claim, by virtue of repeating someone elses vlsim, thst evolution is scientific fact. Please show me a measurable quantifiable proof thst evolution exists at all, much less the wild claim that it created life. 

Where have we observed an unpredictable change in a species? What lab has watched some species differentiate itself, anywhere? It has never been seen or documented. You, and many others, claim it as fact. You push your way into child science classes touting "facts" to indoctrinate gullible youth who do not possess the wisdom to reject your "facts" as the supposition that they are. 

The only facts are this. I might be wrong. You might be wrong. Period.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Then it's a theory.


Then I was right to call them out. Why the reaction when I do so?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> What lab has watched some species differentiate itself, anywhere? It has never been seen or documented. You, and many others, claim it as fact. You push your way into child science classes touting "facts" to indoctrinate gullible youth who do not possess the wisdom to reject your "facts" as the supposition that they are.


Again, the finches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Then I was right to call them out.


You were right to call who out? I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> That's complete nonsense. The idea of ID/creationism has no foundation in evidence or observation, so it fails to qualify as science.
> 
> 
> Fossil evidence supports that theory. DNA evidence backs up that theory. Anatomical evidence makes the theory air tight.


It would seem that you have no problem presenting the "theory" as "airtight" infallible truth.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> It would seem that you have no problem presenting the "theory" as "airtight" infallible truth.


The theory of evolution is airtight. Why is that a problem?


----------



## thericeguy

When you invited me to a discussion about scientific proof of evolution, you started with a first grade levrl video. Raeven demanded a test before bothering to type. I see it all the time. People claiming the veil of science looking down their noses of believers, treating them as ignorant uneducated persons unable to grasp complex ideas. Not only does it make all who do it look bad, it hinders true conversation. It is bias, plain smd simple. It has no place in science.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> The theory of evolution is airtight. Why is that a problem?


For the reasons stated that you ignore. If it is so airtight, why do you fsil to evrn acknowledge the questions, much less answer them.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> When you invited me to a discussion about scientific proof of evolution, you started with a first grade levrl video. Raeven demanded a test before bothering to type. I see it all the time. People claiming the veil of science looking down their noses of believers, treating them as ignorant uneducated persons unable to grasp complex ideas. Not only does it make all who do it look bad, it hinders true conversation. It is bias, plain smd simple. It has no place in science.


OK, but why is the theory of evolution being a solid & airtight a problem?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> For the reasons stated that you ignore. If it is so airtight, why do you fsil to evrn acknowledge the questions, much less answer them.


What do you want to know about evolution?


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> Notice, Raeven, that every one of the examples given is a measurable quantifiable value. You claim, by virtue of repeating someone elses vlsim, thst evolution is scientific fact. Please show me a measurable quantifiable proof thst evolution exists at all, much less the wild claim that it created life.


Fossils and the entirety of the fossil record are the overwhelming factual evidence of evolution. We don't know enough to say eucaryotes created life, but there are some very promising hypotheses on the matter, which I linked to earlier. No one has claimed evolution created life, though you keep attempting to insist they have.



thericeguy said:


> Where have we observed an unpredictable change in a species? What lab has watched some species differentiate itself, anywhere? It has never been seen or documented. You, and many others, claim it as fact. You push your way into child science classes touting "facts" to indoctrinate gullible youth who do not possess the wisdom to reject your "facts" as the supposition that they are.
> 
> The only facts are this. I might be wrong. You might be wrong. Period.


Never read about a virus mutating? That's evolution in action. It's a physical mutation of an organism that benefits the survival of that organism. You can watch it under a sufficiently powerful microscope, if you want to.

Now, what's your evidence for a god, again?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> OK, but why is the theory of evolution being a solid & airtight a problem?


Because it is not? Do you care if your beliefs are right or wrong, or just how many others agree with you? More likely you agree with them, but that is not important. 

I notice you continue to avoid the questions. Is that how science works? You posted a link about finches in response to a question about who has EVER seen an organism become differentiated. Any purported differentiation that occured happened long before Darwin got there. So the question stands, unanswered. 

I swear, this looks just like;

Preacher: I am God. 
Member: The Bible says someone else is God. 
Preacher: Does it say I am not God?


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> Fossils and the entirety of the fossil record are the overwhelming factual evidence of evolution. We don't know enough to say eucaryotes created life, but there are some very promising hypotheses on the matter, which I linked to earlier. No one has claimed evolution created life, though you keep attempting to insist they have.
> 
> 
> 
> Never read about a virus mutating? That's evolution in action. It's a physical mutation of an organism that benefits the survival of that organism. You can watch it under a sufficiently powerful microscope, if you want to.
> 
> Now, what's your evidence for a god, again?


I have not said I am offering proof of God, but you can keep up that diversion if you like. The mutated virus, is it still a virus, or is it a zebra?


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Because it is not? Do you care if your beliefs are right or wrong, or just how many others agree with you?


The theory of evolution is 100% solid. I have zero doubt about it.



thericeguy said:


> I notice you continue to avoid the questions. Is that how science works? You posted a link about finches in response to a question about who has EVER seen an organism become differentiated.


The Galapagos finches evolved into a new species. And it happened quickly enough to be observed.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> I have not said I am offering proof of God, but you can keep up that diversion if you like.


Don't worry. No one is laboring under the slightest misapprehension that you'll be offering proof of anything. 



thericeguy said:


> The mutated virus, is it still a virus, or is it a zebra?


It's statements like these that demonstrate your ignorance of evolution and how it works.


----------



## farmrbrown

farmrbrown said:


> Unfortunately, God doesn't allow Himself to be put in a box, carried to a lab and dissected for the benefit of science.
> *That WOULD be convenient and help in the search for "proof"*, but in His case, the study, evidence and conclusions aren't limited to an exclusive group of educated elite.
> It is an open invitation to all. No degree, no tenure, no Nobel prize required. You don't need any expensive lab equipment or a NASA rocket.
> All you need is a willing heart.
> 
> That may be why some are baffled by* not being able to fin d any "proof".
> They are looking *in all the wrong ways, in all the wrong places.





Raeven said:


> You seem to be saying that unless one finds a god, one is living their life all wrong. That they are somehow deficient. Is that what you're saying?



Nope. I bolded parts of my quote to show the subject.
I didn't say they were living their life wrong, I said if what they wanted was to find Him, trying to do it thru the mechanics of science isn't necessary.
There ARE scientists who "find God" thru their work, very true. That's why I said "That may be why *some* are baffled".

Several times it has been stated that no one is trying to disprove God, science doesn't work like that, etc.
Greg even thought I posted something to show "rabid atheists" hard at work to disprove Him.

Funny thing is, even though I disagree that "no one" is doing that, the number is a tiny minority and not much of a concern to faithful believers.
It wasn't as important to those who know God to make that point as it was for those insisting that it never ever happens.
I notice things like that.
When someone is insisting on 100% of anything, there's usually an underlying reason, an unspoken doubt in most cases.






Raeven said:


> You also seem to be saying that non-believers are willfully working hard to deny your god. They're not. It's simply not relevant to their lives. I have no need to deny what I have no reason to believe. I'm not an anti-theist. I'm an atheist, meaning without belief in a god. I don't care what you or others believe. If a god works for you, that's cool. But they don't work for me.





Raeven said:


> Moreover, your comments don't explain quite a lot of people -- and I do personally know a lot of them -- who once believed but no longer do. In many cases, they tried harder than you can imagine to stick with their faith and ultimately just could not. They agonized over it. They lost their families for it. Were their hearts just not willing enough?


I can't say I know a lot, but I do know of a few. I can honestly say that my own faith hits a big ditch now and then, it seems to get harder as you get older even though when I look back at how many times He carried me thru the rough patches, I SHOULD be stronger. :shrug:

And no I can't explain it for those you know. I think I would be foolish to try.
Only those closest to them would have a clue. For the ones I encounter, when I see them struggling with it or venting frustration, anger, doubt, despair, etc., I offer as much compassion and encouragement as I can.
And I ask for His help.






Raeven said:


> I'm happy to share that *all* of the folks I know who are no longer religious feel much more at peace and are happier now. But that's a bad thing, somehow? Don't you know *any* decent non-believers?


Of course. Many are quite happy with their lives.
One of the biggest breakthrough moments is when you realize that God doesn't ever want you to be unhappy. That's not His purpose and not mankind's.
If a father figure is someone seen as hateful, restrictive and authoritarian instead of kind, helpful and loving - it's easy to see why some struggle with it.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> The theory of evolution is 100% solid. I have zero doubt about it.
> 
> 
> 
> The Galapagos finches evolved into a new species. And it happened quickly enough to be observed.


Your opinion about a theory does not constitute science or fact. It is not evidence of anything. 

Darwin found the finches like that.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Your opinion about a theory does not constitute science or fact.


Careful, we're using my definitions. Remember?

Facts are just little bits of data, a dime a dozen. Theories are where it's really at in science.


----------



## thericeguy

Raeven said:


> Don't worry. No one is laboring under the slightest misapprehension that you'll be offering proof of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> It's statements like these that demonstrate your ignorance of evolution and how it works.


Yes, you sleep well tonight, secure in the knowledge you have shown another Christian nutjob as unable to grasp science. But we both know watching a virus turn into a slightly different virus is zero proof an amoeba turned into al elephant. Who is the deep faith believer here?


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Careful, we're using my definitions. Remember?
> 
> Facts are just little bits of data, a dime a dozen. Theories are where it's really at in science.


Yes, you are right. We did seem to agree that if sufficient numbers of people agree to a wild guess, it became credible. Unless that guess involves a God. Then its just stupid.

Science at its finest.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Yes, you sleep well tonight, secure in the knowledge you have shown another Christian nutjob as unable to grasp science. But we both know watching a virus turn into a slightly different virus is zero proof an amoeba turned into al elephant. Who is the deep faith believer here?


Come on, you can show a little more respect than that.

Nobody said an ameba evolved into an elephant, at least not without billions of years in between.


----------



## Elevenpoint

thericeguy said:


> Yes, you are right. We did seem to agree that if sufficient numbers of people agree to a wild guess, it became credible. Unless that guess involves a God. Then its just stupid.
> 
> Science at its finest.


Rice, go back a bit and dig up the Big Bang Theory thread I started a few months ago, you missed out on that 20,000 plus post thread. That was a dandy.


----------



## Nevada

elevenpoint said:


> you missed out on that 20,000 plus post thread.


Those were the days...


----------



## joebill

Raeven said:


> You seem to be saying that unless one finds a god, one is living their life all wrong. That they are somehow deficient. Is that what you're saying?
> 
> You also seem to be saying that non-believers are willfully working hard to deny your god. They're not. It's simply not relevant to their lives. I have no need to deny what I have no reason to believe. I'm not an anti-theist. I'm an atheist, meaning without belief in a god. I don't care what you or others believe. If a god works for you, that's cool. But they don't work for me.
> 
> Moreover, your comments don't explain quite a lot of people -- and I do personally know a lot of them -- who once believed but no longer do. In many cases, they tried harder than you can imagine to stick with their faith and ultimately just could not. They agonized over it. They lost their families for it. Were their hearts just not willing enough?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to share that *all* of the folks I know who are no longer religious feel much more at peace and are happier now. But that's a bad thing, somehow? Don't you know *any* decent non-believers?



Strangely, the reverse process is also quite common. Some folks are relieved and happy when they conclude there is a God, others when they conclude there is not.

Clearly one group must view Him as a threat or burden, one as a blessing, else why the above? Perhaps one concept or the other is deffective......Joe


----------



## Nevada

joebill said:


> Clearly one group must view Him as a threat or burden, one as a blessing


I don't feel threatened by religion in the least, and if it gives you comfort then I'm fine with that. But I think it's bad for society to conflate religion with science.


----------



## Raeven

thericeguy said:


> Yes, you sleep well tonight, secure in the knowledge you have shown another Christian nutjob as unable to grasp science. But we both know watching a virus turn into a slightly different virus is zero proof an amoeba turned into al elephant. Who is the deep faith believer here?


You keep wanting to insist that your understanding of evolution is the one we must accept. I'm sorry, but it's wrong. Please, before you carry on with any discussion on evolution, read Darwin's On the Origin of Species, at a minimum.

A virus mutation is indeed evolution on a very small scale. To get from an amoeba to an elephant takes billions of years, as I have pointed out to you before. Not tens of thousands, not millions. Billions.

A friendly observation: You seem unable to say anything to anyone in a tone other than insulting and condescending. It doesn't make you look witty or wise. It makes you look like someone with no real argument to make. I suspect if you could moderate your tone a bit, you'd get more productive discussions. That is, if that's your true goal.

I have never called you or anyone else a Christian nutjob. Again, you need to stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Raeven

Nevada said:


> I don't feel threatened by religion in the least, and if it gives you comfort then I'm fine with that. But I think it's bad for society to conflate religion with science.


Ditto.


----------



## Heritagefarm

joebill said:


> I prob'ly missed most of thosre posts, but the ones I rememmber were stating that they did not believe that everything presented as "science" was, indeed, Science.
> 
> A good example would be the statement that man made global warming is "settled science" and that 97% of scientists agree. When those kind of statements are thrown out there, it discredits scientists and makes people mistrust those who make "scientific" claims.
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
> 
> The percentage claim is obviously untrue and misleading, and as time moves on, the predictions of the 1990's become more and more laughable. Even many of those who believe it may be real find not much evidence that we could do anything about it or that we NEED to do anything about it.
> 
> These tactics are horrible roadblocks to the serious advancement of human knowlege, because most depends in one way or another on public support and funding. It seems that this part of the "scientific" community has found a route around peer review;
> 
> Buy off the ones you can with grants and funding and lie about the rest. Does not do true "science" much good in the long run.
> 
> As to the creation of life, I like this story;
> 
> One day in the future, science and God decide to reconcile, each understanding that the other exists and has it's place. They have a meeting and the scientist says;
> 
> You are obviously real, but you are obsolete. i can now create life from a handfull of dirt, just like you did"
> 
> God says "proceed"
> 
> Scientist bends over to scoop up a handfull of dirt, but God stops him, says'
> 
> 
> "You can't use my dirt, you have to make your own!"
> 
> By the very nature of the God whom I believe to exist, the creation of life could or could not have been accomplished by a natural act, God being a supernatural being. Not a thing that can be proven either way, the opportunity having long passed us by. Thankfully, we are not a jury, and neither God nor science will live or die by our vote. Each of us will go to our grave with our opinion clutched firmly, confident we are correct.
> 
> I have no idea how many scientists or angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I know there are many believers amongst scientists and lots of devout Christians who believe in science. I certainly believe in both, but I also believe that the liars and exagerators in both camps do themselves a great disservice.......and yes, both camps have them.......Joe


The 97 percent consensus is very firmly backed up to within a few percentage points. The study analyzed the climate papers from several sources, totaling thousands of articles. A for or against stance was then assigned to each article. Only a few papers supported a position opposing AGW. No stance was taken to mean pro-AGW since the science itself, unbiased, always supports man made warming.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Come on, you can show a little more respect than that.
> 
> Nobody said an ameba evolved into an elephant, at least not without billions of years in between.


I am supposed to show respect to people who give me a 1st grade video introduction to evolution and administer an exam before I am worthy of conversation? And in that conversation, repeatedly ignore questions, thoughts, ideas, and accuse me of not understanding evolution. I think you should rethink your request.

You speak to me as a moron, I will speak to you as a contemptuous ....,


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> The 97 percent consensus is very firmly backed up to within a few percentage points. The study analyzed the climate papers from several sources, totaling thousands of articles. A for or against stance was then assigned to each article. Only a few papers supported a position opposing AGW. No stance was taken to mean pro-AGW since the science itself, unbiased, always supports man made warming.


At one time, 100% of people knew the Earth was flat. There goes that consensus thing again. Its true because we say its true.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Those were the days...


Who knew when I asked if we were from monkeys...it would go that far.


----------



## joebill

Heritagefarm said:


> The 97 percent consensus is very firmly backed up to within a few percentage points. The study analyzed the climate papers from several sources, totaling thousands of articles. A for or against stance was then assigned to each article. Only a few papers supported a position opposing AGW. No stance was taken to mean pro-AGW since the science itself, unbiased, always supports man made warming.


Clearly you did not read the link as to how the 97% was arrived at. most people did not return the questionare, those who had not published in favor of man made global warming were not counted. Yes, thousands of articles were published in favor and millions of dollars paid for them by our tax dollars through grants.

Anybody without an agenda who has done a complete study will conclude that this is the most dishonest and well-funded hoax in the history of mankind.

It is a blight on the scientific community that will endure for a century......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> At one time, 100% of people knew the Earth was flat. There goes that consensus thing again. Its true because we say its true.


Yes but no one ever fell off the edge of the earth, ergo no evidence to support the "theory." Technically, whenever I bring up the consensus thing, it's actually the bandwagon logical fallacy. See? I can detect my own logic flaws.

ANyways, try this:

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-...-how-hot-earth-has-gotten-over-past-165-years
There's a neat graph in there that won't post here.


----------



## Elevenpoint

Nevada said:


> Those were the days...


Everyone got their two cents in on that humdinger...


----------



## Heritagefarm

joebill said:


> Clearly you did not read the link as to how the 97% was arrived at. most people did not return the questionare, those who had not published in favor of man made global warming were not counted. Yes, thousands of articles were published in favor and millions of dollars paid for them by our tax dollars through grants.
> 
> Anybody without an agenda who has done a complete study will conclude that this is the most dishonest and well-funded hoax in the history of mankind.
> 
> It is a blight on the scientific community that will endure for a century......Joe


There wasn't questionaire - that was a different study. The main study analyzed the abstracts of many different papers. If that's not unbiased I don't know what is. And you're assuming any study has some sort of liberal slant to it just because it was funded by the government. Then why do other country's climate scientists arrive at the exact same conclusion? Why does their science match ours? Your conspiracy spans thousands of scientists, entire fields of physical and earth science, most universities, and lots of other stuff. Tell me - do you even know what wavelength of light CO2 reflects? If your answer is "it's invisible" or you have to Google it, we're done here.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Yes, you are right. We did seem to agree that if sufficient numbers of people agree to a wild guess, it became credible. Unless that guess involves a God. Then its just stupid.
> 
> Science at its finest.


How do you explain all the dead viruses and junk DNA embedded in our genome?


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> How do you explain all the dead viruses and junk DNA embedded in our genome?



My theory is, it's caused by eating at Taco Bell and insisting on the Diablo sauce......:ashamed:
You caught me.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> How do you explain all the dead viruses and junk DNA embedded in our genome?


It was not so long ago doctors were cutting out appendix and tonsils as a preventive measure to rid children of those "junk organs". If you are in the area for any reason, remove. Do you think medical science holds those same beliefs about those junk organs?

You use phrases like junk dna because it supports the outcome you want. All you are really saying is mankind has no idea why this dna exists. That sounds way more "science" to me. Why? It is true, not emotional.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> It was not so long ago doctors were cutting out appendix and tonsils as a preventive measure to rid children of those "junk organs". If you are in the area for any reason, remove. Do you think medical science holds those same beliefs about those junk organs?
> 
> You use phrases like junk dna because it supports the outcome you want. All you are really saying is mankind has no idea why this dna exists. That sounds way more "science" to me. Why? It is true, not emotional.


Are you saying the junk DNA does indeed have a use? This is unlikely. We have enough knowledge to create novel organisms from scratch DNA, so I warrant we have a very fair idea of what they can and cannot do.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes but no one ever fell off the edge of the earth, ergo no evidence to support the "theory." Technically, whenever I bring up the consensus thing, it's actually the bandwagon logical fallacy. See? I can detect my own logic flaws.
> 
> ANyways, try this:
> 
> http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05-...-how-hot-earth-has-gotten-over-past-165-years
> There's a neat graph in there that won't post here.


I had previously read the article. Found it alarming. What it fails to do is provide evidence of why the temp is rising, if this has ever happened before, and how long any previous cycles lasted. 

This is my gripe thru all these topics. "Scientists" are taking discrete imperical evidence, assigning it to wild suppositions, and calling it facts. That is what evolution does. That is what global warming - wait, we changed names a third time - climate change does. I see it all over science. 

I have pointed it out in this thread. What response do I get? ---- Christians. You dont get it. Prove there is a God. Etc. It gets real old when I come expecting a science crowd the most prepared to defend their positions with facts.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Are you saying the junk DNA does indeed have a use? This is unlikely. We have enough knowledge to create novel organisms from scratch DNA, so I warrant we have a very fair idea of what they can and cannot do.


So science can look into the unknown and answer questions we dont even know to ask yet?

200 years from now and people are living to 150, new medical problems will surface. We already "know" none of this dna will be involved in any way? I put forth that science needs to check itself and make sure they are not contracting God Complex from the doctors.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> So science can look into the unknown and answer questions we dont even know to ask yet?
> 
> 200 years from now and people are living to 150, new medical problems will surface. We already "know" none of this dna will be involved in any way? I put forth that science needs to check itself and make sure they are not contracting God Complex from the doctors.


Poking fun at scientific predictions, the writers for the Flintstones came up with this. It's only 17 seconds.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf4pUZPaz5k[/ame]


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> Poking fun at scientific predictions, the writers for the Flintstones came up with this. It's only 17 seconds


I think that kind of humility in science can go a long way to restoring some trust smd respect from folks when it does come time to make a best guess. And there will be times when we have to make a best guess. I want the smartest guy in the room guessing for me. I want Spok.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> I had previously read the article. Found it alarming. What it fails to do is provide evidence of why the temp is rising, if this has ever happened before, and how long any previous cycles lasted.
> 
> This is my gripe thru all these topics. "Scientists" are taking discrete imperical evidence, assigning it to wild suppositions, and calling it facts. That is what evolution does. That is what global warming - wait, we changed names a third time - climate change does. I see it all over science.
> 
> I have pointed it out in this thread. What response do I get? ---- Christians. You dont get it. Prove there is a God. Etc. It gets real old when I come expecting a science crowd the most prepared to defend their positions with facts.


Oh great. If you want facst I can get you a bucketload for CC. 
1. The temperature of the earth is in a constant state of flux. GreAt. Everyone already knew that. What's alarming is that the average temperature of the earth, i.e., all the readings from ground stations, satellites, etc. when combined, this number is climbing steadily. Adding only 4 degrees to the global temperature has the capacity to seriously disrupt life as we know it. (Don't get me started on the 6th extinction event - caused by us of course.)

We're pretty sure the climate has been this hot before. CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are one of the surest indicators of planetary temperature. ICe cores are also very helpful. We also have treering data. 

We know for a fact humans are causing the increase in atmospheric CO2. That's indisputable. What people think is that scientists disagree about whether man-generated CO2 and other GHGs are contributing to climate change. What else could be doing it? Something we don't know about? Some invisible, convenient "other natural cause" option that we can check so we get off the hook for destroying the planet? Not so. 

Sorry, but I get emotional when talking about how mean people are to the earth. Hail to Money, Hail to the Great Green God! We say money, power and war, screw the environment and human rights!!!



thericeguy said:


> So science can look into the unknown and answer questions we dont even know to ask yet?
> 
> 200 years from now and people are living to 150, new medical problems will surface. We already "know" none of this dna will be involved in any way? I put forth that science needs to check itself and make sure they are not contracting God Complex from the doctors.


There is a disscordance between what scientists believe and what the public think the scientists believe. The public is of course, not very bright en masse, and so we end up with a lot of people think there's scientific disagreement with a lot of things when there really isn't. There's just people pretending there are, and then other people believe so people, and so on. We're not as evolved as we'd like to think.


----------



## thericeguy

Wont quote the long post. I cannot nor would I want to dispute pollution. In fact, the last time I was in a climate change debate, much like this evolution debate, massive assumptions were made about me, the person became defensive and belligerant, and stomped off with their football. 

Was there a hole in the ozone layer 1000 years ago? Noone knows, right? But it was the rallying cry. The sign of mans evil. All on a supposition. See why I gripe. 

I think we, mankind, could have advanced the entire topic much more rapidly had it been framed as pollution, not the new ice age, wait, make that global warming, holy heck it snowed in Atlanta, make that climate change. 

If we just said "pollution is wrong. Stop it" where might we be?

Why do cities ban clothes lines if we are supposed to use less energy?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Raeven said:


> Don't worry. No one is laboring under the slightest misapprehension that you'll be offering proof of anything.
> 
> It's statements like these that demonstrate your ignorance of evolution and how it works.


Amen and Amen, to steal a phrase.


----------



## mreynolds

thericeguy said:


> Wont quote the long post. I cannot nor would I want to dispute pollution. In fact, the last time I was in a climate change debate, much like this evolution debate, massive assumptions were made about me, the person became defensive and belligerant, and stomped off with their football.
> 
> Was there a hole in the ozone layer 1000 years ago? Noone knows, right? But it was the rallying cry. The sign of mans evil. All on a supposition. See why I gripe.
> 
> I think we, mankind, could have advanced the entire topic much more rapidly had it been framed as pollution, not the new ice age, wait, make that global warming, holy heck it snowed in Atlanta, make that climate change.
> 
> If we just said "pollution is wrong. Stop it" where might we be?
> 
> Why do cities ban clothes lines if we are supposed to use less energy?


That's my take on it too. Instead of rational people constantly bickering over this they should try and meet a middle ground. Of all the arguments I have seen on this, I have really seen no one disagree that something is wrong. Why even bicker over the why? 

I was a green builder/remodeler for 20 years. I believe in energy conservation. I also know the industry inside out. From its infancy even. I know the politics and money that changes hands in the name of this argument. That's why I don't do it anymore. Not commercially anyway.


----------



## joebill

I won't quote the long post either, but there we have a typical emotional response to what is supposed to be a scientific discussion. How can anyone really examine the facts in the face of all of the false stories out there about the cute polar bears dying off and the ice cap is going to be gone by two years ago? Excuxse me, your motive is showing.

Fact is, not a SINGLE one of AL GORE's predictions from his famous "inconvieniant facts" movie came to pass. Also, there has BEEN no warming since 1998. Also, other nations have every motive in the world to bullcrap the numbers, because there is money and fame in it for them, too. AND they certainly HAVE bullcrapped the numbers, as several have been caught falsifying data.

If you google "make America pay for pollution" you will get about two hundred thirty eight MILLION responses, among the first of them is;

https://www.weareoneamerica.org/sit...on Pollution Accountability Act One-Pager.pdf

where it details a billion a year income by selling "permission to pollute" on a market that can be played like the stock market.

How much did Al Gore make by selling "carbon credits"? Pretty confusing, but here are a couple of refferences;

http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-global-warming-and-the-carbon-finance-business/5365419

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#6eb9b2183750

Pretty strange that the guy who started the hoopla managed to put away enough cash to finance a fair sized country while his own house was consuming enough energy for a small town.

I have witnessed some heated arguments about those predictions, and every time the "warmests" are argued to a standstill, the answer ALWAYS is "well even if the planet is NOT warming, this is the right thing to do", which tells you THEIR motives. At the top, the motive is cash, at the bottom it is those cute polar bears (who, by the way, are thriving) and those hated industrialists and polluters, who they believe cannot be curbed any other way than to frighten them with a doomsday tale.

Well educated people sob over species going extinct, while scientists affirm that we are discovering new ones constantly and have probably cataloged only about a third of the ones on hand, and certainly have no idea how many are emerging.

How many who tout Darwin's work have ever really read it? If so, why do they not admit that Darwin thought that extinction of species was the neatest thing since poptops on beer cans?

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quot...-means-of-natural-selection-or-the-preservati

No matter the problem be it global winter, wheich was the big thing not long ago, or global warming, now changed to climate change, it is only an extension of tossing virgins in the volcano to apease the "earth God" or into the sea to avoid offending the sender of fish, only the "grand wizer" has gotten a lot more adept at getting his share.

With all of the predictions fallibng by the wayside decade after decade, the only things that endure are the profits to individuals and governments and the massive regulations and restrictions that transfer money and power to governments. When government functionaries are often gripped by the same emotional tremmors that can be read in the post I DID not quote, little wonder that emotional decisions are made even when the profit motive is missing.

In closing, I quote one of the speakers at the Sierra Club meeting shortly after they had dishonestly convinced envirowhackos that the spotted owl could not breed anywhere but in old growth timber (in fact after that they were recorded as breeding in old car bodies and a Kmart sign).

"Ladies and Gentlemen, if the spotted owl had not existed, we would have needed to invent it"

Which is exactly what they are doing with a lot of problems that do not exist.

Does not mean I favor pollution or a dirty earth aor anything even close. Just means I don't like being lied to to further somebody's emotional or financial agenda...Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm

Thanks for such a long winded post after "not quoting the long post," whatever the $&@# that's supposed to mean. Because of your dismissive attitude towards my stance, pollution, and species extinction, I'm not going to respond. Congratulations, your keyboard strokes were wasted on me.


----------



## thericeguy

Uh oh. Someone took the football. Again.


----------



## farmrbrown

It's probably not good to play football everyday anyway.........
(I need a Charlie Brown smilie)


----------



## farmrbrown

mreynolds said:


> That's my take on it too. Instead of rational people constantly bickering over this they should try and meet a middle ground. Of all the arguments I have seen on this, I have really seen no one disagree that something is wrong. Why even bicker over the why?
> 
> I was a green builder/remodeler for 20 years. I believe in energy conservation. I also know the industry inside out. From its infancy even. I know the politics and money that changes hands in the name of this argument. That's why I don't do it anymore. Not commercially anyway.



That puzzles me too.

Although the answer is probably the same reason the more people I meet, the more I like dogs. People have a natural ability to find the biggest, most convenient "jerk button", and continually press it just for fun.
:grit:

Politics* shouldn't * intrude on science or religion or conservation or many other areas........but then someone finds the jerk button.

That's why my faith has steered from being a Democratic/Republican Christian.
And how many times do you have to show someone the fervent dogma of a scientific theory, refusing any doubt or question - and you see the reflection of a "religion" staring back in the mirror?
Every religion has its share of hypocrites, no? 

In the same book of Genesis where I can show multiple confirmations of what scientists have "discovered" about the earth and mankind's beginnings is an often quoted verse used for political purposes by the short sighted.

*Genesis 1:26&#8211;28:

Then God said, &#8220;Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.&#8221; So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, &#8220;Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.&#8221;*

Yes, God gave Adam "dominion" over the earth and his heirs following him.
We can be good stewards or foolish exploiters, the choice is ours.
The idea that God controls every minutia of our lives is contrary to what the Word says, we have free will. 
When your dad finally gives you the keys to the car, he may have taught you well and always be a phone call away when you need help, but it's up to you to take the wheel and keep in between the ditches.
Have a good trip and drive safely..........


----------



## Heritagefarm

farmrbrown said:


> That puzzles me too.
> 
> Although the answer is probably the same reason the more people I meet, the more I like dogs. People have a natural ability to find the biggest, most convenient "jerk button", and continually press it just for fun.
> :grit:
> 
> Politics* shouldn't * intrude on science or religion or conservation or many other areas........but then someone finds the jerk button.
> 
> That's why my faith has steered from being a Democratic/Republican Christian.
> And how many times do you have to show someone the fervent dogma of a scientific theory, refusing any doubt or question - and you see the reflection of a "religion" staring back in the mirror?
> Every religion has its share of hypocrites, no?
> 
> In the same book of Genesis where I can show multiple confirmations of what scientists have "discovered" about the earth and mankind's beginnings is an often quoted verse used for political purposes by the short sighted.
> 
> *Genesis 1:26â28:
> 
> Then God said, âLet Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.â So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, âBe fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.â*
> 
> Yes, God gave Adam "dominion" over the earth and his heirs following him.
> *We can be good stewards or foolish exploiters, the choice is ours.
> The idea that God controls every minutia of our lives is contrary to what the Word says, we have free will. *
> When your dad finally gives you the keys to the car, he may have taught you well and always be a phone call away when you need help, but it's up to you to take the wheel and keep in between the ditches.
> Have a good trip and drive safely..........


The bolded part contributes to my belief of "creation care." I believe we are not being good stewards of Gods creation if we abuse it for profit, pollute the waters, and drive species to extinction. You believe in creation, right? Every time we lose a species, we kill off a part of the Lords creation. That creature is gone, lost forever, and it much worse when it our fault. Sometimes it happens naturally - of course. But when it's our fault, it is little better than genocide.


----------



## Heritagefarm

Vital signs of the planet



> This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
> 
> The time series below shows the five-year average variation of global surface temperatures from 1884 to 2015. Dark blue indicates areas cooler than average. Dark red indicates areas warmer than average.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWPzGo_C010[/ame]
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWPzGo_C010[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## farmrbrown

Heritagefarm said:


> The bolded part contributes to my belief of "creation care." I believe we are not being good stewards of Gods creation if we abuse it for profit, pollute the waters, and drive species to extinction. You believe in creation, right? Every time we lose a species, we kill off a part of the Lords creation. That creature is gone, lost forever, and it much worse when it our fault. Sometimes it happens naturally - of course. But when it's our fault, it is little better than genocide.


Yep.
Those of us who wanna play "God" soon realize what big shoes they are to fill.
That's what a good father will teach his children. Some learn quicker than others.


----------



## joebill

Heritagefarm said:


> The bolded part contributes to my belief of "creation care." I believe we are not being good stewards of Gods creation if we abuse it for profit, pollute the waters, and drive species to extinction. You believe in creation, right? Every time we lose a species, we kill off a part of the Lords creation. That creature is gone, lost forever, and it much worse when it our fault. Sometimes it happens naturally - of course. But when it's our fault, it is little better than genocide.


Woah! I really do suggest you study your Darwin.

Each species will continue to breed and multiply and improve itself as rapidly as possible until it is limited by SOMETHING. Often some near relative will be created that will not be limited by that same factor, take over the territory and prosper. In many cases, the previous species will die out and become extinct, and so it goes. Lots of variations on that theme, but we have been losing and gaining species since the beginning, and it was happening long before mankind ever walked upright, let along drove a Lincoln Town Car.

Darwin's view, and mine, is that this is how species not only adapt but improve themselves, and at any time most species are better suited to prosper on the planet than they were at any time in the past. It is a nearly timeless cycle, or rather eternal in terms of the earth's existance while "infested" with life, and it will always continue while that condition exists, and Bibically, it was all placed in motion for Man's benifit.

If you could somehow magically cease extinction, you would also cease development and improvement of species, because the planet can only accomodate a limited number. 

Life, nature, God, all march on. Always have, always will....Joe


----------



## joebill

"As ever, the Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCC&#8217;s predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century. In a rational scientific discourse, those who had advocated extreme measures to prevent global warming would now be withdrawing and calmly rethinking their hypotheses. However, this is not a rational scientific discourse. On the questioners&#8217; side it is rational: on the believers&#8217; side it is a matter of increasingly blind faith. The New Superstition is no fides quaerens intellectum."

From
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...ns-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/

enjoy.....Joe


----------



## thericeguy

There is more wildlife today than the day Columbus landed his ship. Why? Water. We have dug so many ponds, created so many lakes, irrigated so many acres of cropland the water source is relatively stable. 

I have seen the cruelty of a 6 month drought on a moderately to heavily populated deer area. Not pretty at all. 

We must all do what we can to preserve nature, but I am not going to sleep naked under a tree and eat grasshoppers.


----------



## Heritagefarm

joebill said:


> Woah! I really do suggest you study your Darwin.
> 
> Each species will continue to breed and multiply and improve itself as rapidly as possible until it is limited by SOMETHING. Often some near relative will be created that will not be limited by that same factor, take over the territory and prosper. In many cases, the previous species will die out and become extinct, and so it goes. Lots of variations on that theme, but we have been losing and gaining species since the beginning, and it was happening long before mankind ever walked upright, let along drove a Lincoln Town Car.
> 
> Darwin's view, and mine, is that this is how species not only adapt but improve themselves, and at any time most species are better suited to prosper on the planet than they were at any time in the past. It is a nearly timeless cycle, or rather eternal in terms of the earth's existance while "infested" with life, and it will always continue while that condition exists, and Bibically, it was all placed in motion for Man's benifit.
> 
> If you could somehow magically cease extinction, you would also cease development and improvement of species, because the planet can only accomodate a limited number.
> 
> Life, nature, God, all march on. Always have, always will....Joe


Now hang on a moment, why is it all right for you to share your Christian beliefs on the environment, which you believe to be correct, but when I try it, I get bashed for "environmentalism" being. my relligion? That's utterly false by the way. If there wasn't a need to keep people from polluting and from burning up the planet, I wouldn't have any "religion."

Anyways, you also seem to using the Bible to justify species going extinct. In your eyes, eventually they'll be revived by God. He's on charge of everything, right? It seems like a pretty valid excuse to not worry too much about extinction. "Jesus could come next minute, for a few decades from now, we really don't know," is a popular tagline amongst my freinds. How about thousands of years from now? Millions? Never? In my mind, those species have gone extinct forever, and it's the ultimate loss.

Now, you're right about one thing, species having been going extinct for a long, long time. Nothing wecan do about that, or probably should, anyways. Some species just simply lose a competitive edge over others and fall to the way of the dodo.

But even in ancient times, humans have had a disproportionate effect on other animalia. Wooly mammoths, for instance, once placed in a precarious position, then hunted to extinction by humans. It's perfectly reasonable - it nearly happened with bison and wolves in modern times.

The main point is the effect modern humans are having on the environment is on par with a mile-wide space object colliding with the earth. That's not a very good resume.


----------



## thericeguy

Have you encountered the phrase environmentalism by abandonment? It describes the views held by some, quite a few actually, that mankind can have no benefits to nature, therefore we must rope off a forest and never dare go there. We must not fish the river, hunt the deer, or fence the field. 

While I agree we can have a large impact upon the environment, this abandonment philosophy is hokey. 

You do realise most of the environmental groups are not pro animal. They are anti man. 

Build a road. Dig a ditch beside it. 6 feet of the manmade ditch is low and holds water. The govt wants to widen said road. The environmental groups start filing an endless line of federal lawsuits claiming the ditch is a wetland. 2 years and $50 million in environmental studies later, construction begins. The low spot, and the 7 frogs that lived there, get bulldozed, and everyone but the taxpayers goes home smiling.

Follow the money.


----------



## Heritagefarm

joebill said:


> "As ever, the Technical Note explains the sources of the IPCCâs predictions in 1990 and in 2005, and also demonstrates that that according to the ARGO bathythermograph data the oceans are warming at a rate equivalent to less than a quarter of a Celsius degree per century. In a rational scientific discourse, those who had advocated extreme measures to prevent global warming would now be withdrawing and calmly rethinking their hypotheses. However, this is not a rational scientific discourse. On the questionersâ side it is rational: on the believersâ side it is a matter of increasingly blind faith. The New Superstition is no fides quaerens intellectum."
> 
> From
> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...ns-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/
> 
> enjoy.....Joe


http://www.skepticalscience.com/no-warming-in-16-years.htm



> Humans have continued to contribute to the greenhouse warming of the planet over the past 16 years. The myth arises from two misconceptions. Firstly, it ignores the fact that short term temperature trends are strongly influenced by a variety of natural factors and observational limitations which must be analyzed to isolate the human contribution. Secondly it focuses on one small part of the climate system (the atmosphere) while ignoring the largest part (the oceans). We will address each of these errors in turn.
> 
> What factors influence the 16 year trend?
> Climate scientists have traditionally looked at climate over long periods - 30 years or more. However the media obsession with short term trends has focussed attention on the past 15-16 years. Short term trends are much more complex because they can be affected by many factors which cancel out over longer periods. In a recent interview James Hansen noted "If you look over a 30-40 year period the expected warming is two-tenths of a degree per decade, but that doesn't mean each decade is going to warm two-tenths of a degree: there is too much natural variability".
> 
> The list of factors which can affect short term temperature trends is extensive, and some of them can rival the global warming signal in magnitude over short periods. The following table identifies a range of influences on the recent temperature trend:


I've got no idea of where many of the charts came from in your link. Some may well be valid, just not showing the whole picture. Others looked somcpletely and totoally doctored to support the slant of Climate Depot. 

Also, looks ike Cruz did some shopping at Climate Depot too:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/ted-cruz-climate-change-pause



> Ted Cruz is certain that global warming stopped 18 years ago. He said that repeatedly during a Senate hearing he chaired Tuesday afternoon devoted to examining what he described as "the science behind claims of global warming." Satellite data, insisted Cruz, shows that "there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years."


http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/



> Letâs be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasnât been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.


Think about it. If the scientists were really docytoring and manipulating the data, they wouldn't let annoying hiatuses appear.



thericeguy said:


> There is more wildlife today than the day Columbus landed his ship. Why? Water. We have dug so many ponds, created so many lakes, irrigated so many acres of cropland the water source is relatively stable.
> 
> I have seen the cruelty of a 6 month drought on a moderately to heavily populated deer area. Not pretty at all.
> 
> We must all do what we can to preserve nature, but I am not going to sleep naked under a tree and eat grasshoppers.


Some of us want to prevent those droughts from becoming more common, more serious, and longlasting.


----------



## Heritagefarm

thericeguy said:


> Have you encountered the phrase environmentalism by abandonment? It describes the views held by some, quite a few actually, that mankind can have no benefits to nature, therefore we must rope off a forest and never dare go there. We must not fish the river, hunt the deer, or fence the field.
> 
> While I agree we can have a large impact upon the environment, this abandonment philosophy is hokey.
> 
> You do realise most of the environmental groups are not pro animal. They are anti man.
> 
> Build a road. Dig a ditch beside it. 6 feet of the manmade ditch is low and holds water. The govt wants to widen said road. The environmental groups start filing an endless line of federal lawsuits claiming the ditch is a wetland. 2 years and $50 million in environmental studies later, construction begins. The low spot, and the 7 frogs that lived there, get bulldozed, and everyone but the taxpayers goes home smiling.
> 
> Follow the money.


Humans can have a great influence of the environment. Restoring habitats, helping animals, cleaning the rivers, etc. I'm fairly sure that when wild areas are left alone, they thrive quite fine on their own most of the time. If we loosen our standards, we'll have strip mines in the public parks.

The spirit of a wild place is easily felt, and it feels entirely different from areas where man is the primary influence.


----------



## thericeguy

Heritagefarm said:


> Humans can have a great influence of the environment. Restoring habitats, helping animals, cleaning the rivers, etc. I'm fairly sure that when wild areas are left alone, they thrive quite fine on their own most of the time. If we loosen our standards, we'll have strip mines in the public parks.
> 
> The spirit of a wild place is easily felt, and it feels entirely different from areas where man is the primary influence.


Care to address where environmental dollars are going, amd why they do so little to help the environment. If the enbironmemtal groups spent their dollars buying habitat instead of paying lawyers, what would they have today?

It is not pro environment. It is pro environmental leader power and budget. It is FAR too close to a scam.


----------



## joebill

I don't know where all the charts came from either, but here is a bit about the NASA and other charts;

http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/

As you can see, the business about global warming being "settled science" with 97% agreement is far from fact. By the way, I have no financial motive to fudge anything, nor any other motive, except being convinced that it is a giant fraud to move more money and power into the hands of those who crave it.

I rather favor wild places withouit huimans in them, too, except, of course, for me!....

That is why I live 50 to a hundred miles from the nearest stoplight and have for a very long time, but it also gives me some perspective. I have seen the ugly mess that clear-cutting makes out of a mountainside and the nearly equal ugliness of the aftermath of a man-caused forest fire. They put up billboards near the fire sights stating in great big letters what caused the mess, but they have to take them back down soon, becuase mama nature turns it into a lovely mountain meadow real soon.

I recall when Prince William sound was "forever ruined" by an oil spill, "forever" being a couple of years. Nature has been restoring this planet for a very long time and will continue to do so. Each of us feels the other's faith is misplaced, but neither can prove his point beyond a reasonable doubt.

I also realize that creation is more tangable and easier to worship that the Creator, and i am considerabley more comforted and inspired by a quiet time in the desert than a time in Church, so much so that I have to remind myself which is which from time to time, but the loss of the wooly mamoth somehow does not prey upon me, and some of my favorite "wild places" before we moved West 40-odd years ago were abandoned stip mines that had been reclaimed by nature and lime quarrys that had been converted by nature into deep lakes.

Man changes things constantly, but rarely destroys. Species come and go, as do living things individually, and that will remain the case.

I believe one of the most common causes for rare species getting more rare as time goes by is that people understand that having an endangered species on their property can mean LOSS of that property for all practical purpose, and they sort of help it along towards extinction. Never done it myself, but I have encouraged it to move down the valley a ways.

I am kind to my 50 acres and avoid polluting it and enjoy the wildlife for the most part, but it's most noble use in my mind is as a dwelling place and place to make a living for my family and myself, and rattlesnakes and skeeters, black widows, etc, are invited to live elsewhere.

Don't forget that some of those species that are near being extinct or should be are parvo virus, polio, dog tapeworms, HIV,........you get the message......Joe


----------



## joebill

Also;

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/19/whistleblowers-in-noaa/

Enjoy...Joe


----------



## Nevada

joebill said:


> As you can see, the business about global warming being "settled science" with 97% agreement is far from fact. By the way, I have no financial motive to fudge anything, nor any other motive, except being convinced that it is a giant fraud to move more money and power into the hands of those who crave it.
> 
> I rather favor wild places withouit huimans in them, too, except, of course, for me!....


One of the biggest changes in understanding during our lifetimes is the idea that enormous resources like oceans, atmosphere, and deserts are not unlimited and aren't immune from being devastated by pollution. Before our time dumping it in the ocean, discharging it in air, or burying it in the middle of the desert were reasonable solutions for disposal. Then there was someone living near what we thought was the middle of the desert, or huge areas of the ocean were no longer worth fishing.

Of course there are those who still advocate dumping it in the ocean, in the air, or in the desert. They pretend they don't believe that those resources are limited, but it's more likely that they just don't care. Short term profit takes priority over preservation, so we still have projects like Yucca Mountain.

These short term ideas are the ideas of the modern right. They didn't used to be. Eisenhower was committed to making investment in infrastructure projects like the Interstate highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, as well as investment in schools & hospitals. Those projects supported prosperity for decades.

But republicans learned during the Reagan administration that investment in defense provided a faster short term gain. We really need to change our thinking.


----------



## thericeguy

Nevada said:


> One of the biggest changes in understanding during our lifetimes is the idea that enormous resources like oceans, atmosphere, and deserts are not unlimited and aren't immune from being devastated by pollution. Before our time dumping it in the ocean, discharging it in air, or burying it in the middle of the desert were reasonable solutions for disposal. Then there was someone living near what we thought was the middle of the desert, or huge areas of the ocean were no longer worth fishing.
> 
> Of course there are those who still advocate dumping it in the ocean, in the air, or in the desert. They pretend they don't believe that those resources are limited, but it's more likely that they just don't care. Short term profit takes priority over preservation, so we still have projects like Yucca Mountain.
> 
> These short term ideas are the ideas of the modern right. They didn't used to be. Eisenhower was committed to making investment in infrastructure projects like the Interstate highway system, the St. Lawrence Seaway, as well as investment in schools & hospitals. Those projects supported prosperity for decades.
> 
> But republicans learned during the Reagan administration that investment in defense provided a faster short term gain. We really need to change our thinking.


Try to build the interstate highway system today. It will take 50 years for the Sierra Club to stop exploiting it for personal gain. We really need to change the way we think.


----------



## Nevada

thericeguy said:


> Try to build the interstate highway system today. It will take 50 years for the Sierra Club to stop exploiting it for personal gain. We really need to change the way we think.


It can be done. Remember that a lot of infrastructure projects we need today are replacement projects, such as replacing outdated and crumbling bridges. Remember also that newer technology allows us to do things differently that we used to.

Probably the biggest infrastructure facing us is the upgrading of the information superhighway. We're behind even some third world nations on Internet services. That upgrade can be done with minimal environmental impact.


----------



## Shine

If a transgendered male is on a female group sanctioned by the school and they travel somewhere that will require them to stay overnight, schools are prohibited from forcing them to sleep elsewhere than where the rest of the other females sleep. This means that your daughter or grand daughter could be sleeping with a male.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf

"Housing and Overnight Accommodations. Title IX allows a school to provide separate housing on the basis 
of sex. But a school must allow transgender students to access housing consistent with their gender identity and may not require transgender students to stay in single-occupancy accommodations 
or to disclose personal information when not required of other students. 
Nothing in Title IX prohibits a school from honoring a student&#8217;s voluntary request for single-occupancy accommodations if it so chooses."


----------



## Bearfootfarm

No one is "forced" to sleep anywhere they don't want to



> Nothing in Title IX prohibits a school from honoring a student&#8217;s voluntary request for single-occupancy accommodations if it so chooses."


----------



## Shine

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is "forced" to sleep anywhere they don't want to


You mean that the school will have to divulge the biological sex and not the "gender" of the person who suffers from Gender Dysphoria so that the person who is assigned the same room in which they will spend the night can make a choice?

If that person decides against that pairing and is not moved to another room then that is forced. Is a person who chooses against the pairing discriminating against the transgendered person?

You do not play the "what if" game as you call it but this eventuality most certainly exists.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> *You mean* that the school will have to divulge the biological sex and not the "gender" of the person who suffers from Gender Dysphoria so that the person who is assigned the same room in which they will spend the night can make a choice?
> 
> If that person decides against that pairing and is not moved to another room then that is forced. Is a person who chooses against the pairing discriminating against the transgendered person?
> 
> You do not play the "what if" game as you call it but this eventuality most certainly exists.


I meant what I said. It wasn't complicated at all

Your rambling questions are dodging the fact that what I said is true.
No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.

No one is discriminating if they ask for a separate room, since they aren't making anyone else do anything at all


----------



## thericeguy

Bearfootfarm said:


> I meant what I said. It wasn't complicated at all
> 
> Your rambling questions are dodging the fact that what I said is true.
> No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.
> 
> No one is discriminating if they ask for a separate room, since they aren't making anyone else do anything at all


Thats cool. Still gonna vote to put penises together and vaginas together. If, the great if again, I get my way, I will take great pleasure in giving some folks a great big NEEEEENER NEEEEENER.


----------



## Heritagefarm

joebill said:


> I don't know where all the charts came from either, but here is a bit about the NASA and other charts;
> 
> http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/
> 
> As you can see, the business about global warming being "settled science" with 97% agreement is far from fact. By the way, I have no financial motive to fudge anything, nor any other motive, except being convinced that it is a giant fraud to move more money and power into the hands of those who crave it.
> 
> I rather favor wild places withouit huimans in them, too, except, of course, for me!....
> 
> That is why I live 50 to a hundred miles from the nearest stoplight and have for a very long time, but it also gives me some perspective. I have seen the ugly mess that clear-cutting makes out of a mountainside and the nearly equal ugliness of the aftermath of a man-caused forest fire. They put up billboards near the fire sights stating in great big letters what caused the mess, but they have to take them back down soon, becuase mama nature turns it into a lovely mountain meadow real soon.
> 
> I recall when Prince William sound was "forever ruined" by an oil spill, "forever" being a couple of years. Nature has been restoring this planet for a very long time and will continue to do so. Each of us feels the other's faith is misplaced, but neither can prove his point beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> I also realize that creation is more tangable and easier to worship that the Creator, and i am considerabley more comforted and inspired by a quiet time in the desert than a time in Church, so much so that I have to remind myself which is which from time to time, but the loss of the wooly mamoth somehow does not prey upon me, and some of my favorite "wild places" before we moved West 40-odd years ago were abandoned stip mines that had been reclaimed by nature and lime quarrys that had been converted by nature into deep lakes.
> 
> Man changes things constantly, but rarely destroys. Species come and go, as do living things individually, and that will remain the case.
> 
> I believe one of the most common causes for rare species getting more rare as time goes by is that people understand that having an endangered species on their property can mean LOSS of that property for all practical purpose, and they sort of help it along towards extinction. Never done it myself, but I have encouraged it to move down the valley a ways.
> 
> I am kind to my 50 acres and avoid polluting it and enjoy the wildlife for the most part, but it's most noble use in my mind is as a dwelling place and place to make a living for my family and myself, and rattlesnakes and skeeters, black widows, etc, are invited to live elsewhere.
> 
> Don't forget that some of those species that are near being extinct or should be are parvo virus, polio, dog tapeworms, HIV,........you get the message......Joe


Well, viruses barely qualify as "living." They realy have much more in common with computer code than living organisms. Viruses don't even have instincts - they just hijack and replicate.


----------



## joebill

Nevada said:


> It can be done. Remember that a lot of infrastructure projects we need today are replacement projects, such as replacing outdated and crumbling bridges. Remember also that newer technology allows us to do things differently that we used to.
> 
> Probably the biggest infrastructure facing us is the upgrading of the information superhighway. We're behind even some third world nations on Internet services. That upgrade can be done with minimal environmental impact.


I recall giving O'bama nearly endless funding for that very chore only about 7 years ago, and it didn't take him long to actually start chuckling about the very concept of "shovel ready jobs"

It wasn't about infrastructure at all. It was about a slush fund to repay unions and others who got him elected. The reason we have infrastructure suffering is the same. Give money to government to repair it, they pass it out amongst their friends and demand more. They hardly even pretend to care any more if the whole thing falls into a smouldering heap, which demonstrates exactly why the federal government is not even supposed to be in the road business to begin with.....Joe


----------



## Nevada

joebill said:


> I recall giving O'bama nearly endless funding


That doesn't sound like our republican congress at all.


----------



## JohnP

Sometimes I feel like a nut. Sometimes I don't.


----------



## joebill

Nevada said:


> That doesn't sound like our republican congress at all.


What republican congress? O'bama OWNED the house and a total of 3 republican senators voted for the stimulus in the senate, one of whom was soon to become a democrat.

Even with the handicap of operating without spines, most repubs didn't want to hand him a blank check.....Joe


----------

