 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Electronics - Design Forum » I feel sorry for all you [in your face] atheists on... |
|
Page 25 of 28 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| D from BC... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 6:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:41:29 -0700, The Great Attractor
<SuperM at (no spam) ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:34:50 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress at (no spam) comic.com
wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 03:45:03 -0700 (PDT), brent
bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 5:33 am, Richard Swaby <resw... at (no spam) dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:15:09 -0700 (PDT), brent
buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
You are all too smart to shed a tear or fully appreciate Amazing
grace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yddQeVlfGpk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3XdXEJEI4E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD-Ct7GoxQs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJg5Op5W7yw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDLNiraIz7w&feature=related
This topic appears to have run out of steam. Thank God for that!!!!!
Yeah, ( I still feel sorry for you guys though :-)
'The problem with faith, is that it really is a conversation stopper.
Faith is a declaration of immunity to the powers of conversation. It
is a reason, why you do not have to give reasons, for what you
believe. '
Sam Harris
How old is the earth?
Enter # years here ___________________.
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
4.5 - 5 Billion Years old, from accretion time to now. It probably
took several million years to accrete.
The *stuff* we, the Earth, and the other local media is made of is
about 13 Billion years old... From The Creator's Bang Time.
!
[/quote]
Genesis in the bible reads very different:
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvGene.html
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
**** Hey! What no Bang! That's a really BIG omission!
(Note..there's no light yet that's only happens at stage 3.)
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
**** All in the dark! No light yet...
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
**** I'm not impressed by an omnimax-entity that still has to talk to
himself when creating photons.
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
from the darkness.
**** This is when God created the 'light meter'. Yup.. A good amount
of lumens.. Not great.. but good.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And
the evening and the morning were the first day.
*** Useful for when Christian kids ask questions like 'Why is there
day and a night?'
6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters,
and let it divide the waters from the waters.
*** Yikes.. Give this an english update.. English 2009 please not 1611
english.
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under
the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it
was so.
**** Sure whatever..
8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.
*** Welll...that explains that!
Anyone feel like milking goats?
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D from BC... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:15:23 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]
There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians.
There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are
interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and
represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that
there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and
started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that
time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do
not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is
supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your
model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented
evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are
becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite
ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
[/quote]
What do you believe is the age of the earth?
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D from BC... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:17:06 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]I already have answered this question on this thread.
[/quote]
Just looking for numbers.
When I see a pile of words, it's not as convincing.
[quote]
Somehow in spite of the fact that you try so hard to be offensive, I
find myself not disliking you. In looking at the history of your
posts you are very unreasonable in many** of your arguments and quite
ridiculous in trying to provoke a reaction from Christians. I do give
you credit that you do not tend to get personal, even if you are
extreme in your characterizations of the Christian faith.
** actually most
[/quote]
Just to confirm..
Do you believe in that the universe was created 5 700 to 10 000 years
ago as per
Young Earth creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_earth_creationism
You believe in YEC? Yes? 100%?
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Beryl... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Fred Abse wrote:
[quote]
The accepted simple definition of a colored object is an object that
either transmits or reflects the components of the visible white
light spectrum differentially, some more than others.
[/quote]
Birds see colors that we can't.
Dogs see fewer colors than we do, but they see more than black/white.
Our primary colors, RGB, aren't primary colors for all animals.
[quote]An invisible object would have to be perfectly transparent to visible
wavelengths, and it would also reflect nothing, so would exhibit no
color.
[/quote]
I think the mirrors on my walls are invisible objects. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Great Attractor... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 10:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:57:07 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress at (no spam) comic.com>
wrote:
[quote]
Genesis in the bible reads very different:
[/quote]
You do not get it. The bible DOES declare the big bang. That was the
moment "God created light". There still was not yet any matter at that
time.
Also, God's version of seven days is likely... VERY likely NOT Earth
days.
More like "God Days".
And us? We are not the only little "man experiment" God has in the
universe. If you think so, your arrogance is why Earth's "man" is so
tragically flawed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D from BC... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:09 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:07:57 -0700, The Great Attractor
<SuperM at (no spam) ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:57:07 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress at (no spam) comic.com
wrote:
Genesis in the bible reads very different:
You do not get it. The bible DOES declare the big bang. That was the
moment "God created light". There still was not yet any matter at that
time.
[/quote]
But as per bible coloring book, Mr.God SkyDaddy of Universe
Engineering Incorporated (UEI) first created the heaven and the earth
and then AFterward babbled to himself ...'let there be light'..
So earth first then Bang afterward???
I suppose it's a miracle the Bang (light) didn't fry the earth.
1...2...3...
King James Genesis.'
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. '
[quote]
Also, God's version of seven days is likely... VERY likely NOT Earth
days.
More like "God Days".
[/quote]
How about a God 7 days can mean 7pS which would be an impressive feat
for a God worthy of worship..
7 real days may impress desert goat herders 3000 years ago, however
it seems a little slow considering that the earth can be nuked in a
day.
[quote]
And us? We are not the only little "man experiment" God has in the
universe. If you think so, your arrogance is why Earth's "man" is so
tragically flawed.
[/quote]
I believe sentient life is probable in the universe.
http://www.sciencemusings.com/blog/uploaded_images/HUDF-777866.jpg
Spots are not stars..They're galaxies.
About people being flawed...
People will never be as perfect as the gigantic invisible pink
kangaroo. The gigantic invisible pink kangaroo is perfectly
indetectable and perfectly leaves no evidence.
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| The Great Attractor... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:09:54 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress at (no spam) comic.com>
wrote:
[quote]
So earth first then Bang afterward???
I suppose it's a miracle the Bang (light) didn't fry the earth.
1...2...3...
[/quote]
Bang!... Matter (no light)... coalesce (THEN)...
STAR (THEN)... LIGHT!
And in our case, THEN THAT star went BANG! and THEN our matter
coalesced into our Earth, around our new sun.
To hear the Mayans tell it, there were three other stars before ours
and ours is the last. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D from BC... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 05:32:22 -0700, The Great Attractor
<SuperM at (no spam) ssiveBlackHoleAtTheCenterOfTheMilkyWayGalaxy.org> wrote:
[quote]On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:09:54 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress at (no spam) comic.com
wrote:
So earth first then Bang afterward???
I suppose it's a miracle the Bang (light) didn't fry the earth.
1...2...3...
Bang!... Matter (no light)... coalesce (THEN)...
[/quote]
The method was omitted in bible. Fill in the blank with anything you
can imagine.
God could have teleported matter into specific locations to fool
everyone of an ancient universe.
[quote]
STAR (THEN)... LIGHT!
[/quote]
A Big Bang without photons! Amazing...
I tremble in fear at such superiority. A God worthy of worship!
Short List of Bangs that Give off Light
fireworks
nuclear explosions
supernovas
Short List of Bangs that Give off no Light
Traffic accident
Book falling on floor
Slammed door
Biblical big bang for creation of the universe?
[quote]
And in our case, THEN THAT star went BANG! and THEN our matter
coalesced into our Earth, around our new sun.
To hear the Mayans tell it, there were three other stars before ours
and ours is the last.
[/quote]
The gigantic invisible pink kangaroo is more superior to God.
The GIPK is so superior, it's impossible to know anything about it.
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:58:29 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 10:45 pm, "JosephKK"<quiettechb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 15:00:35 -0700 (PDT), brent
buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 18, 5:54 pm, don <don> wrote:
brent wrote:
So, In the end, all laws are the laws of men. What motivates men
to ;pick and choose their laws will be based on their idea of what
they think is right based on their understanding of god (or nature for
atheists).
I think you are really understanding the atheists point of view.
You are 100% correct "In the end, all laws are the laws of men."
This is the main crux of all theist and atheist arguments.
There is no god because its just man vs man.
And the use of a god figure is there to keep the week minded in line.
As long as those chose to keep a god figure in their lives, other men
will subvert their meaning.
AS many have said here, and so many times before.
Believe what ever you like, just do not make laws based on your beliefs.
If the "Laws of man" are passed by a consensus of man, then those laws
will be followed.
If however, men pass laws based on the "Laws of god" without consensus,
there will be a fight, like the one here.
don
PS: I consider myself a "weak" atheist. Just don't push to far to the
un-believable.
I know there is not much more to discuss here, but all laws are based
upon beliefs.
So it is impossible to not make a law that incorporates peoples
beliefs. Those beliefs can be beliefs based upon scientific
reasoning, or based upon religious reasoning or a combination of
both. Most of our laws in the USA are based upon Christian reasoning,
and most atheists are just fine on most of the laws that have been
derived via Christian (or old testament bible reasoning as well).
All of the tort laws in this country are based on religious belief.
This is simply not true. Most actually involve strictly secular ideas
about body injury, property, reputation, and privacy. And generally
tend to be closer to Code Hammurabi rather than Xtian ideas.
A quick glance from Wikipedia:
--------
Hammurabi (ruled ca. 1796 BC – 1750 BC) decreed that he was chosen by
the gods to deliver the law to his people. In the preface to the law
code, he states, "Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the
exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of
righteousness in the land."
----------------
Sounds like you need to call him Xrabi - LOL.
[/quote]
Oh gosh, now anyone who claims to hear some god is an xtian? That
will be news to the xtian sects.
[quote]
This is your example of an atheist who you look up to . ROTFLMAO
[/quote]
I never claimed that Hammurabi was an atheist or that he was someone
to look up to. I claimed that most (european/american) law is
(relatively to xtians) secular and based on code Hammurabi.
That you bothered to try to twist this escapes me.
[quote]
Now >I'll bet the tort lawyers that do not like religion would not like
those "religious" laws removed.
(Come to think of it, this religious person would like them revisited).
Why can't you guys even say the word Christian. Is it really that
repugnant to you?
[/quote]
I have met (and dealt with for years) real through and through
Christians; they are rare. For all the pretenders i use Xtian.
No negativity involved, just discernment. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:32:01 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET
<kensmith at (no spam) rahul.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 7:26 pm, brent <buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[....]
However, as has
been discussed on this thread in several places, as an atheist you
need to not only reject Christianity, but also reject every
explanation of life and the universe that includes god. That is a
pretty tall order.
Atheists only need to reject one different theory than the huge number
that you do. You, I assume, only believe one story of creation. This
means that you reject all the other sorts of gods and the one that
says "it happened without a God involved". Atheists accept that
theory but not the one you believe. This means that neither has a
taller order than the other.
[.... moral rules ....]
A careful observer can get there without any need for any religious
entanglements.
A careful observer? Is that what you are ? Of course a careful
observer can get there with the NEED for religious entanglements too.
This is the thing that you atheists slay me over. You refuse to
believe that because someone comes to a different conclusion than
you , after reviewing all the evidence, that they can some how be
smart ( rather - a "careful observer")
In this world there are those who say that we invented the pythagorean
theorem and other who say we discovered it. Those who say we
discovered it believe in an absolute math where it all exists without
us. The same different opinions can happen on moral issues. There
are absolutists and relativists among both the religious and atheist
community.
Absolutist religious:
God knows all so he knows right from wrong and told us.
Relativist religious:
God decided what rules there were and told us.
Absolutist atheist:
Right and wrong like pythagorean theorem are discovered by people who
think about it.
Relativist atheist:
Right and wrong are decided by society.
Others have done so before me and illuminated my path.
If you are interested and have desire to learn this, i can refer you
to those that have prepared the way for any to explore.
I would love to see how many of these path illuminators that you speak
of were atheists. Likely, the vast majority of them held to strong
religious beliefs and were expressing their understanding of gods
laws. I guess that because they were not Christian, then that puts
them in the atheist camp with you?
Do you look at every one of these guys and reject them if they were
not atheists?
Or, do you get to learn from their wisdom , score them as atheists
because they learned what they did apart from Christianity?
[/quote]
Go Moose, i find his tireless willful arrogant ignorance to be too
much bother. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:55:32 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 22, 12:07 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:23:36 -0700 (PDT), brent
buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 17, 6:50 pm, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh... at (no spam) Hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
The third reich was built on scientific philosphy. The master race
stuff is a natural philosophical conclusion when one accepts the
theory of evolution. The Soviet union and Communism in general is
underpinned on the philosophy that science can solve all of mans
problems.
Thats false. Evolution has nothing to do with the "master race". It
is an excuse. A justification that people use. Just like bible
thumpers justify their beliefs with the bible.
You can easily dismiss it as false, but based on the discussion you
laid out below about hate and the desire to procreate and how all of
that is completely consistant with science and evolution, then the
master race stuff is a very logical position to take by a group of
people that want to dominate and optimize their power.
I'm not dismissing that they used it. But what your not understanding is
that evolution says nothing at all about a "master" race. There is no
science that has ever found any proof of that. This is why it is a
justification. It is a way for people to pretend to have a valid argument
for their position. Some might even believe it but it doesn't mean it's
true.
For example, in politics today racism is used to justify why "republicans"
do not go along with the left. It is a justification why they don't. It has
nothing to do with fact. It is a way for the left to say "Hey, they don't
agree with us and since we must be right the only conclusion is that they
must be racists(else why would they not vote for obama or be behind him like
we are)". Again, it is a "justification".
This is a problem I have with atheists. They can so easily point out
the inconsistancies of religious people (IT is actually quite easy in
that religion tries to quantify what they actually believe), but when
very troubling conclusions pop out of the evolutionary philosophy - it
is simply dismissed. Real people , not too many years ago, have tried
to base their societies on what they thought was an honest
interpretation of science. We can see the results.
Well, I agree a little bit. But not all atheists are this way. Just like not
all christians are bad. It's ignorance in both camps. But are you saying
that every religious bases society has worked? This is surely false too.
No, I am not saying that. We are still mostly the existence of god.
As you know I believe in the Christian interpretation of the existence
of God.
But a society based in pure science has very little for those human traits
that most of us consider bad. Anger? What purpose is that? Love? Who needs
it? If science is about understanding life(which it ultimately is) then the
those things are irrelevant unless somehow they are required for
science(which they happen to be... at least at the core).
Religion. What is it? It is a way to understand the world. But let me ask
you. Has any of your knowledge about your religious beliefs been first hand?
Or have they been passed down and learned from other humans(and only other
humans). I know you have thought about it and had questions. But where di
the answers come from? Answer this honestly too.
I am well aware that I could not independently come up with a set of
beliefs.
Your limitations are not everybody else's.
Christianity accepts the revelation of truth, so this is not
a big obstacle for me. But even without revelation, man has taken
thousands of years to get to where he is. And I do not mean
scientifically. Ideas about morals, property rights, obligations to
the king, restitution, these things could never be independently
learned in one generation.
Dead wrong again, just because you could not achieve it does not mean
nobody else could. This is clear because others have.
Where we are is based on traditions and
what I believe is referred to as "natural law". These are accepted as
absolute laws of society, but have required hundreds and hundreds of
years to fully understand. These laws are only discoverable through
the ups and downs, wars, peace, feast and famine of human experience.
They come with a high price, and it is why I have a high respect for
tradition.
Wrong again. Astute observation
What the heck is "astute observation" This almost assumes that
"if people were only smart enough they would all agree with me"
Who wins in a society were there is a vehement disagreement? The one
who has been more astute in their observations ? - LOL
[/quote]
The laughter of willful ignorance. The standard dictionary
definitions apply.
[quote]
and clear thinking
That is a real pompous thing to say. As if to imply all of Christian
society is not based on clear thinking?
[/quote]
Of course, it is based on unquestionable religious belief systems. By
their own definitions.
[quote]
has found religion unnecessary
Your clear thinking (The kind that is incredibly smart)?
[/quote]
If you presume that the laws of reason do not exist, you err. Being
"smart" has nothing to do with being able to learn them or use them.
Only being exposed to them does. Independent rediscovery may require
being "smart", but i do not see how or why.
[quote]
ethics that very much matches the best ethics of all
religions at their very best.
Which 20th century atheistic society was that again? I will assume we
rule out Pol - Pot - LOL!
What diversion do you intend here? Trying to pillory an idea you do[/quote]
not like with an analogy that does not fit?
[quote]
snip
I agree. Science should be blind to such issues. But also scientists
generally are paid by people who are not scientists. Also most scientists
would not be scientists if they couldn't make money at it.
This is where I get nervous about letting science have too big an
influence in things. Especially when the conclusions can be easily
politicized.
Per recent track record i am much more scared when politics dictated
answers to scientists.
Which is almost always when it comes to actual real policy (read ,
actually affect people's lives in dollar terms) made by scientists
when they are discovering the truths about non-repeatable types of
things
[/quote]
What are you getting on about here? Are you talking non-repeatable
things like climate change?
[quote]
Another example along your line of thinking is race. It it should be clear
to any scientist that their are racial differences. Very significant ones.
This does not mean that any race is bad(because all races have potential and
each race has it's pro's).
Yet you won't hear about this from scientists. Mainly because if a scientist
were to analyze it scientifically he would not make it very far.
Scientists are constrained by the prevailing cultural beliefs. The
conventional wisdom is that they are constrained by religious belief,
but it goes much much deeper than that. Even if religious belief were
completely eliminated, science would still be constrained by the
prevailing prejudices of society, and the scientists themselves would
mostly conform.
Wrong yet again. Particular example Einstein. The physics he
produced flew in the face of his religious beliefs, and almost all
conventional wisdom.
The point I was trying to make is how I find it interesting that none
of the atheists here on sed find anything they believe about science
to lead them to some troubling logical or ethical dilemmas about other
areas of life. You have all found a perfectly self contained and
perfectly consistent model about how life works - no dilemmas , no
contradictions.
[/quote]
I can't speak for any others, but i keep finding potential solutions i
would like to try. Proper use of reason can detect incorrectly framed
questions, which is the source of the vast majority of ethical
dilemmas. Try working at learning reason, you too may find
incorrectly framed questions.
[quote]
I actually find this stunning.
You guys are all either that good, or that deluded or you just refuse
to acknowledge and chink of weakness as you argue here on sed.
[/quote]
I never claimed that i was "all that good", that is words you are
putting in my and others mouths. Like others here i claim to make
products that work as desired. Engineering artifacts if you will.
What do you produce?
[quote]
Einstien apparently did think enough to be troubled by some of the
ramifications of science as he understood it .
Snip
--
Transmitted with recycled bits.
Damnly my frank, I don't give a dear
----------[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:19:50 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 22, 12:33 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 05:53:01 -0700 (PDT), brent
buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:11 am, "JosephKK"<quiettechb... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:45:42 -0700 (PDT), brent
buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
On Oct 15, 11:32 pm, Beryl <fo... at (no spam) road.net> wrote:
brent wrote:
But you guys really cannot think outside the box. Your intellectual
powers are not as great as you believe them to be.
You've blabbered on enough, brent. Time for you to get outside the box.
Tell us how that unbridled imagination that you're so proud of has led
you anywhere. You _never_ give examples. Show us something.
I do not consider myself mentally superior to someone based upon my
belief system versus their belief system. I believe that when two
rational people look at similar evidence and come to different
conclusions, then faith is likely involved for both parties in drawing
their conclusions.
But to answer your question, here is some stuff that I work on in my
spare time to try to explain difficult engineering ideas. Be careful
in going through the website, because it was created by someone who
believes in Jesus Christ.
www.fourier-series.com
Checked it. Not very good. Fails in its announced goals.
Well, I was not asking you to evaluate here (but I did appreciate the
comments you made a few weeks ago). I produced it because Beryl
demanded that I show him something that indicates that I can think in
general, and outside the box in particular. But I suppose that he
can take your word on it and dismiss it now. You have likely provided
him irrefutable evidence that it does not indicate any "outside the
box" thinking. LOL!
Consistency error.
Email received today:
-------------------------------------------
Brent,
I want to congratulate you on a great piece of work to demystify the
Fourier Series and Fourier Analysis! Your interactive Flash Programs
and your audio explanations have helped me tremendously to learn some
basics and then translate them into practice.
I am a 67 year old "Student" who likes to chase mathematical
curiosities and thus to rectify my poor study habits of many years
ago. Actually I do have some personal quests where I am trying to
understand the periodic nature of events. I use MS Excel and the add-
in FFT tool to deconvolute the data but I never understood how to use
it, or understand it. Your tutorial has helped a lot.
Please keep up the good work.
[name with held]
-----------------------------------------
another received a bit ago:
----------------------------------------
Brent,
Thanks a ton for your effort. You get an A+ on your teaching
evaluation!
I needed a good refresher, and succinct it was! You earned the title
"Docere"
If you ever need help call.
Thanks again for your hard work!
[name with held]
--------------------------------
I receive approximately 1 email like this per week. Several ,
including the second one above, from people who identify themselves as
having doctorate level degrees.
approximately 30 people per day open up my stuff on smith charts and
about 8 people per day go through all five programs. It is similar
numbers for the Fourier series stuff. Its a lower for the new fourier
transform stuff I just recently put up.
Different people can look at the same evidence and come to different
conclusions.
I think the difference is that the people who know they do not know
the material and get stuck in textbooks are not as picky about certain
things as you are. Perhaps you are not motivated to learn or you
already know the material.
[/quote]
And any of this is supposed to mean something to me? Do yourself a
favor and improve your FFT thing in the ways joseph2k proposed why
don't you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 3:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:15:23 -0700 (PDT), brent
<bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 21, 7:01 am, John Devereux <j... at (no spam) devereux.me.uk> wrote:
brent <buleg... at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> writes:
On Oct 21, 6:41 am, "RogerN" <re... at (no spam) midwest.net> wrote:
"D from BC" <myrealaddr... at (no spam) comic.com> wrote in messagenews:iu1td51fp1us2k4qgp9oj0geaa13bj3o5u at (no spam) 4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:00:11 -0500, "RogerN" <re... at (no spam) midwest.net
wrote:
Sad story, Today on October 20th, Hank Hanegraaff kicks the living dog
crap
out of Richard Dorkins and his sack of crap books he sells to the weak
minded atheists of our day.
http://www.equip.org/broadcasts The MP3 wasn't available at the posting
but
should be their soon. Warning, not for the weak, to see Dawkins get the
crap kicked out of him and tuck his tail and run yelping is a sad thing,
but
he deserves it.
RogerN
How old is the earth?
D from BC
Amateur smps designer.
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to usenet sci.electronics.design
I already saw the answer, it was 4 billion in 1997 so today it's 4 billion
and 12. But I've heard others claim it's 7 billion years old.
If today someone made a toothpick from wood that was 50 years old, would the
toothpick be 50 years old or brand new just made today?
RogerN
That is an interesting answer.
He could have created the earth 6006 years ago - or however old it is
supposed to be - complete with a meticulously faked 4-billion year old
geologic and evolutionary record.
So what are we supposed to believe? The story told by the wonder of gods
creation and deduced by the minds god gave us or the story told in the
bible?
Either way isn't the implication that god is a liar?
--
John Devereux
There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians.
There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are
interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and
represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that
there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and
started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that
time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do
not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is
supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your
model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented
evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are
becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite
ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
[/quote]
Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might
believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New
Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time,
why don't you? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| D from BC... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:14:20 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:15:23 -0700 (PDT), brent
bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians.
There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are
interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and
represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that
there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and
started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that
time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do
not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is
supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your
model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented
evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are
becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite
ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might
believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New
Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time,
why don't you?
[/quote]
The bible is readable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readability
One would get more meaning reading a telephone book.
imo..the bible is not readable.
Example:
Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.
And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
What good is book when read one thinks ' What!? Huh? wtf?'
D from BC
Amateur smps designer
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to sci.electronics.design |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JosephKK... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 01:41:30 -0700, D from BC
<myrealaddress at (no spam) comic.com> wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:14:20 -0700,
"JosephKK"<quiettechblue at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:15:23 -0700 (PDT), brent
bulegoge at (no spam) columbus.rr.com> wrote:
There are many interpretations of the Bible story by Christians.
There is 6000 year old interpretation-period. There are
interpretations that the days in the Bible are figurative and
represent large amounts of time. There is an interpretation that
there was a world here before and that God wiped the slate clean and
started over about 6000 years ago and all Bible references are to that
time(I think maybe Roger is getting at this interpretation, but I do
not want to put words in his mouth).I am sure there are others too.
You and your buds here have very tight views of how a Christian is
supposed to believe, and you won't consider any deviations to your
model about how Christians are supposed to believe,even when presented
evidence that might upset your model about how stupid Christians are
becuase they all believe " __ Fill in the blank__" ,which is quite
ironic given how open minded to new ideas you guys are.
Say what? The question is not so much about what a Christian might
believe, but rather about they behave. This is also what the New
Testament tries to teach. Read it again, more carefully this time,
why don't you?
The bible is readable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readability
One would get more meaning reading a telephone book.
imo..the bible is not readable.
Example:
Jonah 1:17 Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.
And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.
What good is book when read one thinks ' What!? Huh? wtf?'
D from BC
Amateur smps designer
British Columbia, Canada
Posted to sci.electronics.design
[/quote]
You are entitled to your opinion. Just don't expect anybody to have
the same opinion.
Not that i will ever defend any religious text much. I may from time
to time ask for honesty when reading them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 3:07 am
|
|