dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on dansguardian/christian parental controls question - Ubuntu ; Wes Groleau illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing: > Moog wrote: >> Yup. I'd agree with that, although the carbon dating method is likely >> to be accurate. Don't scientists give it a +/- 1% accuracy rate. > > Carbon-14 dating relies ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 200

Thread: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

  1. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Wes Groleau illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Moog wrote:
    >> Yup. I'd agree with that, although the carbon dating method is likely
    >> to be accurate. Don't scientists give it a +/- 1% accuracy rate.

    >
    > Carbon-14 dating relies on certain assumptions that cannot be proven.


    So we're back in the realms of "god" then? Cool.
    ;-)

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  2. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:



    John. Sorry. I've snipped the above stuff as I feel it is possibly the
    wrong place for such a discussion.

    I mean no offence by doing it, it is obvious you are a deeply
    spiritual person and your views, although completely different to
    mine, are well thought through and make perfect sense. It's certainly
    not the usual religious dogma I hear.

    Me. I'm pretty much of the opinion that this is our lot. We have to
    make the most of it and leave a legacy of goodness with our offspring.

    Things may change for me in later life, but at present, I doubt it.

    >> Ouch. I'll take that under advisement. Perhaps Paracetamol would be
    >> the senisble option?

    >
    >
    > That might work. Right now my VA doctor has me taking one 325 mg coated
    > aspirin per day. The coating protects the stomach lining.


    Smarties - as we call them over here (I believe North America has a
    smarties brand that is completely different to ours)

    > It is for thinning my blood because I had two stents inserted last May.
    > I also take Plavix so there are no sticky platelets to clog up on the
    > stents. Plavix can make me bruise easily, and if I get a cut, like
    > trimming a fingernail cuticle, I can bleed for hours if I don't apply
    > pressure. It's not that I'm bleeding very hard at all, but it can really
    > mess up a keyboard, mouse, mousepad, .... More cleanliness aggravation
    > than any medical emergency.
    >
    > I haven't really experienced any headaches (migraines) since 2004, when
    > I stopped working. There was a lot of job stress to get parts milled by
    > an always impossible due date, long hours at work (12/6 or worse),
    > fluorescent lighting bothering my already-poor eyesight, sinus problems
    > all over my head, etc. Since I am free from all of those except the
    > sinus stuff, and I'm not frequently leaning over a VMC mill table
    > examining some small detail or loading a part, doing tilting actions
    > that may cause some of the sinus problems, I'm not suffering.


    Excellent news.

    My headaches are, like yours predominantly down to my poor eyesight.
    Actually, one eyeball has limited sight and the other one strains to
    compensate leaving me with severe migraines.

    They aren't overly bad at present though, and I get maybe 2/3 bad ones
    per annum.

    Thanks for the discussion BTW.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  3. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Could the half-life of carbon have changed over the millennia? Time is
    > only a relative measurement anyway, and not a hard fact.


    Inductive principle: If a sufficient number of observations
    all had the same result, we assume the thing being observed
    has always and will always have that result under the same
    conditions.

    The problem with Carbon-14 is the assumption that some of
    the conditions were always the same.

    1. ALL Carbon in an animal's body came from plants
    directly or indirectly.

    2. The percentage that is Carbon-14 is determined by
    the amount of radiation striking carbon atoms.

    3. This radiation has no significant effect on the
    carbon after the plant is eaten.

    4. The annual amount of this radiation has never changed.

    5. Therefore, all carbon-14 in the animal's body at death
    is lost only by radioactive decay.

    (3) is doubtful. Radiation reaching the earth is believed
    to be affected by the earth's magnetic field, which is believed
    to be non-constant.

    (5) is doubtful. Petrification is said to be the effect of
    substances in the organism being replaced over time by other minerals.
    Has this NEVER happened in smaller amounts in the organism you
    are trying to date?

    I believe there are other dating methods that have stronger
    foundations than Carbon-14

    Is Carbon-14 proven accurate by always getting the correct answers?
    No--the correct answers themselves are also based on dubious
    assumptions. And then there is the assumption that all of the
    instances of it getting the wrong answer are due to an unidentified
    special cause.

    --
    Wes Groleau
    http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau/Wes

  4. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-11, caver1 wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> On 2008-04-10, caver1 wrote:
    >>>> Joe wrote:
    >>>>> On 2008-04-09, caver1 wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Here is where you are jumping to conclusions. Where did I ever say God
    >>>>>> exists?
    >>>>>> There are equally closed minds on both sides.
    >>>>>> Both say that everything came from nothing.
    >>>>>> Even Quantum mechanics.
    >>>>>> Every one says the size of the Universe is impossible for the human mind
    >>>>>> to comprehend. Try imagining nothing thats even harder.
    >>>>>> Both sides rely on a certain amount of faith.
    >>>>>> It is a little mind that belittles someone for their beliefs. And
    >>>>>> neither side is free of that little mindedness.
    >>>>> No, science does not rely on faith, nor does it state that everything
    >>>>> came from nothing. Science is a search. It starts with the
    >>>>> understanding that we do not know everything, and works towards
    >>>>> figuring out as much as we can in a search for knowledge.
    >>>>
    >>>> No that is where the close minded on the religious side are wrong. Even
    >>>> the truly opened minded of the religious know that not everything is known.
    >>>>
    >>> This is not the case. Not by a long shot. Any devout Christian knows
    >>> exactly how everything was created. It is spelled out in the Bible.
    >>> They may try to fudge it a bit to fit more with reality by saying that
    >>> God's 6 days are like millions to us, but they still use that story as
    >>> the be all and end all. The "zealots" will claim that all of science>
    >>> is a lie and that the history of the world only encompasses the last
    >>> 6000 years...

    >>
    >>
    >> That is not true if you go through the gambit of different "Christian"
    >> religions there are many interpretations as to the length of those days.
    >> Only the closed minded "faithful" knows how everything was created. A
    >> God in the Bible does not say how just that he did.

    >
    > I guess you are just hard of reading. The how is "God created it".
    > There needs to be no other how for religion.
    >
    >>
    >>>>> Religion starts out by assuming that we do know everything. Anything
    >>>>> that we don't have a rational answer for, we just lump into "God made
    >>>>> it", and whammo - simple explanation. The two are mutually exclusive,
    >>>>> and only one of them is closed-minded.
    >>>> If you follow the what I call the non-zealot creationists,for lack of a
    >>>> better term, They state that God did create everything but they do not
    >>>> know how as God never said.

    >>
    >>
    >> The Bible states that God knows everything and Man will never know as
    >> much as God. Your above statement is once again the close minded.
    >>

    >
    > Ummm, you are replying to your own comment...
    >
    > I know what the bible states. To Science, you start out without the
    > assumption of a supreme being, thus all knowledge is fair game. We'll
    > never know everything, but we'll have fun trying.
    >
    >>> They know exactly how. He waved his hands, and it was there. They
    >>> have no thirst for further knowledge. God said "let there be light"
    >>> and there was. The core of religion is faith in that myth, or others
    >>> much like it for systems other than Jewish/Christian. The core of
    >>> science is a thirst for understanding of those things that we do not
    >>> know now.
    >>>
    >>>>> Hell, Science does not even insist that there is no "creator". That
    >>>>> is always the possibility. It may just turn out that it is the
    >>>>> eventual answer. The difference is that science will not get there
    >>>>> without proof. For religion, no proof is needed, and no lack of proof
    >>>>> will ever be enough to dissuade.

    >>
    >>
    >> But many "Zealots" do say there is no God and lamb bast those that
    >> believe in God. Look at the beginning of this thread.
    >> Those do have a faith that there is no God as they have no proof.
    >> Only the close minded need no proof
    >>

    >
    > No, you are missing the entire point of science again. Without proof,
    > nothing exists. It is not closed-minded. It is the epitome of
    > open-mindedness. You show me evidence of God, I'll believe there is a
    > chance he exists. You show more evidence, I'll believe more. Without
    > any evidence, he simply isn't there. Science does not work to
    > disprove God. There is no need, nor is it possible.
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>>> But many anti religious, science faithful( for lack of a better term) do
    >>>> say there was no creator.
    >>> No, they do not. They say that there is no evidence of a creator.
    >>> That is much different.

    >>
    >> Look at the beginng of this thread to those who accuse the one who want
    >> Christian parental blocking of brainwashing his kids and there is no God.
    >> I did not say all. This is true of both sides. The open minded say there
    >> is no proof and leave the others alone.
    >>

    >
    > It is simply because you do not understand. You want to read
    > intentions into people's words when there is none. Until there is
    > proof of God, to an Atheist, there is no God.
    >
    >> It is impossible to prove a negative in the
    >>> world of science. You cannot prove that something never existed.
    >>> What you can do, though, is look for evidence of the positive, and
    >>> report the lack thereof. It is true that to many in the world of
    >>> Science, the religious are looked upon with comedic scorn. The reason
    >>> is not that they are saying that there is no God. The reason is more
    >>> that they find it amazing that someone would put the whole basis of
    >>> their life on something that they have no evidence to show that it
    >>> exists.

    >>
    >> That gives them no reason to degrade them for that. Just as it gives the
    >> close minded religious "zealots" do do the same.





    Only in the close minded.




    >
    > In many cases, it does. Religion can be more than just a "way". It
    > can be a very dangerous vehicle. It can be the word that tells you to
    > love thy neighbor, or it can be the word that tells you to take 14
    > year old wives, by force, rape them, and beat them if they object.
    > And it can tell those 14 year olds that they are evil if they tell.
    > Even the mainstream religious will look on that "cult" with scorn, but
    > they feel victimized when people look at them the same way.


    >>>> My point here is At this point there is no ultimate proof either way. So
    >>>> any on either side can denigrate the other for their faith and this
    >>>> discussion has proven a point that most on either side are very closed
    >>>> minded.
    >>> There can be no proof that there is no God (or anything else for that
    >>> matter). Your view is wrong, though. You are calling people closed
    >>> minded when that is the furthest thing from the truth. Their argument
    >>> has always been that without proof, there is no point in belief.




    Only in the ones that do not want to believe. So what. does that give
    anyone the right to show disrespect for the other? Maybe they see it the
    other way around - they can't understand why you don't believe in God.
    Does that give them the right to disrespect you?



    >> That is where you can only decide that for yourself. As that can always
    >> be turned the other way. For lack of evidence that God does not exist
    >> how can you not believe?

    >
    > Because logic dictates that you do not believe in anything without
    > proof...




    They believe they have proof. Darwin when he first started his theory
    and while he was alive believed that he had the truth. Yet most all
    proofs for it were not found until after he was dead. Where was the
    proof for his beliefs? The same place the other side got theirs.
    Observation.
    Just because you don't agree doesn't give you the right todisrespect.The
    you in here is generic.




    >> The point of what I was trying to make was not if one side is right or
    >> wrong but neither side has the right to lamb bast the others beliefs as
    >> they were doing in the beginning of this thread.
    >> I tried to stay vague as to certain specifics as I didn't want to get
    >> into that type of debate. I made a mistake as many here focused in on
    >> one or two words insted of the complete statement. No where in here did
    >> I say if I believed in God or not nor will I.
    >> Religion has its place science has its place and they do not have to be
    >> mutual exclusive. Only in the close minded on both sides are they.
    >> And I do believe what you said said the same.
    >>

    >
    > I'm not even sure what you are saying...
    >
    >>
    >>> And let's face it, Religion has always made Science the enemy.
    >>> Scientists have been burned as witches, excommunicated, imprisoned or
    >>> tortured for saying things (with evidence) that didn't fit into the
    >>> bible. When the Church said that the Earth was the center of the
    >>> Univers, Galileo was not treated very well for proving otherwise...




    Not true Many in power in religion made science out to be the enemy.
    Once again close minded people. If religious people all made science to
    be the enemy where would science be today? Once again Galileo, Newton,
    Einstein only as examples all believe that there was a creator but it
    did not affect their scientific quest for scientific knowledge.


    >>
    >> True Galileo was open minded the religious leaders of his time were not
    >> they refused to listen. Even the Bible states that all false religion
    >> will be destroyed. I do not want to get into that as there are many
    >> definitions as to the meaning of false.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Now how many scientists have tortured or killed Priests for having a
    >>> different point of view?





    True but once again close minded people. How many "scientists' tortured
    people for scientific knowledge? example under the Nazi regime, Under
    the Japanese during WW2? Horrific and wrong so should we brand all
    science as monsters?



    >>
    >> It happens today. Not to the extremes of the past. But if you do not
    >> take your research in a certain direction you will not get funding.

    >
    > What does that have to do with what I asked?




    I am just showing that there are close minded people on both sides.



    > It does not happen today. Not in any way. Scientists do not torture
    > or kill priests for having a different point of view.
    >



    Where in this world today do Priests kill or torture people for their
    beliefs? What does that prove?
    But then again "non-Believers" do - Cambodia, China, Russia, Africa.



    >> I am not making excuses. The whole course of human history has been one
    >> cruelty on man brought on by another man. Religious or not. There have
    >> been many holy wars, the Crusades amongst others. There have been an
    >> equal amount of non religious wars, Civil wars amongst others.
    >> It is only the closed minded that tries to put all the wrongs on the
    >> other side. We are all human and deserve respect on that account.

    >
    > There have been very few non-religious wars. Even most civil wars are
    > started on religious grounds. Not all, of course. Some are
    > completely political in nature (including the American civil war).
    > But religion has played a very large part in the majority of the wars,
    > expecially in the last 2000 years.



    That is where you are wrong. True most wars were fought by religious
    people but if you look into the true underpinnings of those wars it was
    for personal or political gain. The American civil war, French , or the
    English civil wars were not about religion. WW1 & 2 were not about
    religion. The Russian civil war was not about religion, The Boxer
    rebellion was not about religion, the Korean war, the Vietnamese war ,
    the American revolution, Genghis Kahn, the Vikings , Thermopolye, (not
    sure of spelling on that one) The wars of the Romans, The Napoleonic
    wars....I could go on.
    It is true that many were fought for religion and many bad things have
    been done in the name of religion but the belief that most wars were
    brouht about by and for religion are wrong.

    What does any of that have to do with showing respect to one another?
    caver1

  5. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Moog wrote:
    > John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >
    >
    >
    > John. Sorry. I've snipped the above stuff as I feel it is possibly the
    > wrong place for such a discussion.
    >
    > I mean no offence by doing it, it is obvious you are a deeply
    > spiritual person and your views, although completely different to
    > mine, are well thought through and make perfect sense. It's certainly
    > not the usual religious dogma I hear.
    >
    > Me. I'm pretty much of the opinion that this is our lot. We have to
    > make the most of it and leave a legacy of goodness with our offspring.
    >
    > Things may change for me in later life, but at present, I doubt it.
    >



    No problem, and I hope everything works out for you.


    >>> Ouch. I'll take that under advisement. Perhaps Paracetamol would be
    >>> the senisble option?
    >>>

    >> That might work. Right now my VA doctor has me taking one 325 mg coated
    >> aspirin per day. The coating protects the stomach lining.
    >>

    >
    > Smarties - as we call them over here (I believe North America has a
    > smarties brand that is completely different to ours)
    >



    I don't know. I haven't been in a drug store in years. My meds are
    mailed to me unless it's something new prescribed on the day of a doctor
    visit. Then I just grab them from the pharmacy in the VA Hospital.


    >> It is for thinning my blood because I had two stents inserted last May.
    >> I also take Plavix so there are no sticky platelets to clog up on the
    >> stents. Plavix can make me bruise easily, and if I get a cut, like
    >> trimming a fingernail cuticle, I can bleed for hours if I don't apply
    >> pressure. It's not that I'm bleeding very hard at all, but it can really
    >> mess up a keyboard, mouse, mousepad, .... More cleanliness aggravation
    >> than any medical emergency.
    >>
    >> I haven't really experienced any headaches (migraines) since 2004, when
    >> I stopped working. There was a lot of job stress to get parts milled by
    >> an always impossible due date, long hours at work (12/6 or worse),
    >> fluorescent lighting bothering my already-poor eyesight, sinus problems
    >> all over my head, etc. Since I am free from all of those except the
    >> sinus stuff, and I'm not frequently leaning over a VMC mill table
    >> examining some small detail or loading a part, doing tilting actions
    >> that may cause some of the sinus problems, I'm not suffering.
    >>

    >
    > Excellent news.
    >
    > My headaches are, like yours predominantly down to my poor eyesight.
    > Actually, one eyeball has limited sight and the other one strains to
    > compensate leaving me with severe migraines.
    >
    > They aren't overly bad at present though, and I get maybe 2/3 bad ones
    > per annum.



    I used to get almost one per day when I worked at Southwestern Bell
    Telephone Co., now called AT&T. Sometimes the only "cure" was a hot
    shower and then trying to get some sleep.


    > Thanks for the discussion BTW.



    You are more than welcome. Thanks for the opportunity.

    I just came up from the basement, and discovered my 20-year-old sump
    pump is not bad. Only the actuating switch was not snapping when the
    float was at the top and raising the lever. A few manual pokes and pulls
    with a straightened coat hanger wire with a hook bent in the end has
    loosened it, and I think it will be OK for awhile now. Maybe another 20
    years. ;-)

    It pumped water for 30 minutes. Water that was backed up in the two tile
    pipes that probably go around the foundation.

    Now I can quit worrying how much it will cost me, and go to bed and get
    some sleep. It's 0921 here (CDT), so you could say I have my days and
    nights mixed up a little. ;-)


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  6. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-11, caver1 wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> On 2008-04-10, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>>> "caver1" wrote in message
    >>>> news:47fd375e$0$6155$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
    >>>> : Cork Soaker wrote:
    >>>> : > : In the beginning there was nothing a void. then all of a sudden there
    >>>> : > : was a Big Bang and everything was made-by chance.
    >>>> : > : where was everything before either of these? both sides put their
    >>>> : > : faith in everything was made from nothing.
    >>>> : > : They are only mutually exclusive in the close minded.
    >>>> : >
    >>>> : >
    >>>> : > Haven't read much Quantum Theory have you?
    >>>> : >
    >>>> : >
    >>>> :
    >>>> :
    >>>> : Even Quantum only goes back so far.
    >>>>
    >>>> You've pretty much proved my point there.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Quantum theory is the study of the very small, caver. Quantum is
    >>> exactly what describes the process that started the big bang. The
    >>> problem scientists have had for quite some time is the transition.
    >>> You have the theories of how atoms interact on the level of particles,
    >>> which is much different than Relativity, which describes how objects
    >>> interact in big-space.
    >>>
    >>> In recent years, the two theories have begun to be tied together into
    >>> string theory. It is likely the end of the discussion. Once strings
    >>> are fully understood, it is very possible that we will have a pretty
    >>> complete understanding of how the univers started. Soon, CERN will be
    >>> doing an experiment in which 2 particles will collide after a trip
    >>> through a 14 mile long accelerator. When they hit, it is expected
    >>> that they will produce a mini black hole, which will provide a lot of
    >>> energy, and will also provide answers to a lot of these questions.
    >>>

    >>
    >> I agree. Or it may just add many more questions. we do not know that and
    >> anyone that says otherwise is showing their faith.
    >> I never said that scientific faith was wrong just that is was there.
    >> I may not know as much about Quantum Mechanics as you. Who knows. I
    >> drive my family and my friends nuts trying to stay on top of these
    >> things. I know what Quantum is.

    >
    > You know what Quantum means, you clearly do not understand what it is.
    >
    >> But at the same time just because Quantum theory exists does that give
    >> the right to belittle someone for their beliefs just because they have
    >> them. Once again read the whole thread.

    >
    > I have. You have been saying things from the beginning that make
    > little to no logical sense...
    >
    >> Then again Science has always maintained that it takes many millions of
    >> years to make a planet, yet just the other day the claim to have found a
    >> planet that did no exist 2000 years ago. How many new questions does
    >> that bring up.

    >
    > Science has not said (at least in the past 100 years) that it takes
    > millions of years to make a planet. A Planet only takes seconds to be
    > created. It takes millions of years for life to evolve on a planet to
    > the point where we are.




    Evidently you haven't read about the recent discoveries and what the
    scientists said about it. I would really like to see where you can prove
    that a planet can be form in a matter of seconds.
    Another case in point Dark matter. For years science has had faith that
    dark matter exists even if they couldn't prove it because that was the
    only way they could get their theories to work. Thats faith. Nothing
    wrong with that. They are just now starting to see what they believe is
    the affects of dark matter. Part of the problem with there not being
    dark matter is they could not account for all of the mass that they
    figure should be there so Bingo dark matter. I am being facetious using
    the Bingo. Just this last Year because of the capabilities that
    computers have given them new calculations were done on the amount of
    mass in the Milky Way and they found it to be twice as large as
    previously thought. Not in diameter but in thickness. So what does that
    say for all other calculations?
    I am not arguing how long it took for everything to come about even
    science doesn't agree on that one.
    I am just pointing out that just because you think you may be right does
    not give you the right to not show respect for someone else's beliefs.
    Showing respect is not saying you agree with them. The American prsident
    goes to China he shows respect to their leaders and their flag. Does
    that mean he agrees with them?
    caver1
    >> I have always taught my kids to always look for the truth stay curious.
    >> Never go to one source for your information for that is dangerous.
    >> But always show respect for the other person regardless of their beliefs.
    >> The posters at the beginning of this thread did not do that. Many on
    >> both sides do not show respect for the other.

    >
    > Some beliefs do not deserve respect, nor do some people. I do not
    > respect anyone who feels it is important to kill others in support of
    > ther religious beliefs. But many religious sects do believe that this
    > is necessary. I also do not respect any person that has not earned
    > it.
    >
    >
    >


  7. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-11, Cork Soaker wrote:
    >> : Quantum theory is the study of the very small, caver. Quantum is
    >> : exactly what describes the process that started the big bang. The
    >> : problem scientists have had for quite some time is the transition.
    >> : You have the theories of how atoms interact on the level of particles,
    >> : which is much different than Relativity, which describes how objects
    >> : interact in big-space.
    >> :
    >> : In recent years, the two theories have begun to be tied together into
    >> : string theory. It is likely the end of the discussion. Once strings
    >> : are fully understood, it is very possible that we will have a pretty
    >> : complete understanding of how the univers started. Soon, CERN will be
    >> : doing an experiment in which 2 particles will collide after a trip
    >> : through a 14 mile long accelerator. When they hit, it is expected
    >> : that they will produce a mini black hole, which will provide a lot of
    >> : energy, and will also provide answers to a lot of these questions.
    >> :
    >>
    >> I'm looking forward to that experiment. Very much.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Me, too. I am just hoping that Hawking lives long enough to see it,
    > as well. It is basically a proof of his life's work. His condition
    > has gotten pretty damned bad. Though he is still teaching, he is
    > nearly completely paralyzed...
    >
    >



    Great person. But at the same time some of his greatness comes from
    respecting others.
    I do not agree that it will end the discussion. Thats your faith. I
    believe that it will answer some things and that it will open up more
    possibilities.
    caver1

  8. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-04-11, Wes Groleau wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> On 2008-04-11, Wes Groleau wrote:
    >>>> Joe wrote:
    >>>>> This is not the case. Not by a long shot. Any devout Christian knows
    >>>>> exactly how everything was created. It is spelled out in the Bible.
    >>>> This Christian thinks that you don't know much
    >>>> about Christians nor about the Bible.
    >>> Care to spell it out more accurately?

    >> Spell what out? YOU said _any_ knows exactly how.
    >> I offered the counter example: me.
    >>
    >> You said it is spelled out in the bible. Rather than
    >> asking me to quote the entire bible, why don't you just
    >> give the reference to any passage that "spells it out" ?
    >>

    >
    > I already have. Genesis. God created the...



    That is where you are close minded. Yes many "believers" think that is
    all they need. Good for them. You think because of that all "believers"
    have to be that way. Close minded. You need to accept that not all of
    what you believe is the truth. The Bible does not say how the earth was
    created and many "faithful" have the want and need to try to understand how.
    Even if they don't they deserve respect as human beings just as you do,



    > If you have faith in God and belief in the Bible, what more do you
    > need?
    >
    > Without faith, you can never have enough information. With faith,
    > you'll never need any more information...
    >
    >


  9. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    measekite wrote:
    > snip
    >>
    >> It doesn't matter. There still is a beginning, created by God. It
    >> being before the first day of "creation" is meaningless, it wasn't
    >> always there. Only God was.
    >>

    >
    > Anybody who believes in God in not really capable of believing in God.
    > Here is why.
    >
    > Until a person can grasp the concept of something that has no beginning
    > and has no end they cannot begin to understand the concept of God. So
    > they can only think they believe in something they are incapable of
    > understanding.
    >
    > Linux 2.4.22 of the newest testies.
    >>
    >> snip

    >



    At the same time no human can grasp the shere size of the entire
    universe. So no one can believe in it? Or ones who only believe in
    science can only think they do because they are not capable of grasping
    in their puny little mind everything from strings to everything, So it
    doesn't exsit.
    That is not a vary good point.
    caver1

  10. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Wes Groleau wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> Could the half-life of carbon have changed over the millennia? Time
    >> is only a relative measurement anyway, and not a hard fact.

    >
    > Inductive principle: If a sufficient number of observations
    > all had the same result, we assume the thing being observed
    > has always and will always have that result under the same
    > conditions.
    >
    > The problem with Carbon-14 is the assumption that some of
    > the conditions were always the same.
    >
    > 1. ALL Carbon in an animal's body came from plants
    > directly or indirectly.
    >
    > 2. The percentage that is Carbon-14 is determined by
    > the amount of radiation striking carbon atoms.
    >
    > 3. This radiation has no significant effect on the
    > carbon after the plant is eaten.
    >
    > 4. The annual amount of this radiation has never changed.
    >
    > 5. Therefore, all carbon-14 in the animal's body at death
    > is lost only by radioactive decay.
    >
    > (3) is doubtful. Radiation reaching the earth is believed
    > to be affected by the earth's magnetic field, which is believed
    > to be non-constant.
    >
    > (5) is doubtful. Petrification is said to be the effect of
    > substances in the organism being replaced over time by other minerals.
    > Has this NEVER happened in smaller amounts in the organism you
    > are trying to date?
    >
    > I believe there are other dating methods that have stronger
    > foundations than Carbon-14
    >
    > Is Carbon-14 proven accurate by always getting the correct answers?
    > No--the correct answers themselves are also based on dubious
    > assumptions. And then there is the assumption that all of the
    > instances of it getting the wrong answer are due to an unidentified
    > special cause.



    Good stuff, Wes.

    Someone, somewhere else, once said that human scientific knowledge only
    spans a few centuries. Nuclear science, carbon dating included, has only
    been around for a few years in comparison. We didn't have good enough
    clocks until digital technology was available. Without clocks, nobody
    could time nuclear decay.

    So even if there have been many, many observations made in the last few
    decades, nobody has any data going back earlier. Therefore it is
    reasonable to assume their might/could have been some change in the time
    it takes for a element to decay to a certain point.

    We could be fooling ourselves and not even realize it because our
    testing methods are unreliable over a time span that we cannot visit.

    I wonder if young people sometimes forget that digital clocks and
    calculators were not "always here." I've heard that a lot of kids don't
    even know what a rotary dial phone is.

    Makes me laugh when they try to explain something without even knowing
    about all of the missing pieces. ;-)

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  11. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse wrote:
    > Moog wrote:
    >> John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>
    >>> I have no conflicts whatsoever with Genesis' creation and evolution.
    >>> Not knowing with certainty (there is no proof) whether creation
    >>> happened in six 24-hour days or not, or whether man has walked the
    >>> Earth far longer than someone's guess that we were all created just
    >>> 6000 years ago. Not knowing what is unprovable doesn't bother me. I
    >>> figure it is just another of those things Satan tries to confuse us
    >>> with, so we can argue and not keep our eyes focused on Jesus.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Actually John, I have a little sympathey with your viewpoint. It is
    >> difficult to argue with vagueness. For me, the beliefs of all the
    >> various religions of this planet are just vague enough t be
    >> scinetifically accurate.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Don't believe or follow "religions" Moog. That is where the problem
    > lies. "Religions" are man's twisting, with a lot of help from the devil.
    >
    > If you want to "argue" with yourself about what God wants, then read His
    > book, the Bible, and see for yourself what He expects and promises.
    >
    > But until you are ready to really want to know the truth, you won't
    > recognize it without the Holy Spirit to guide you. His help is free; all
    > you need to do is ask. Do so inside your closet so nobody else will know
    > and be tempted to laugh at you.
    >
    > You *will* discover because God said: Knock and the door will be opened.
    > Seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be forgiven.
    >
    > That idea is found in many places in the Bible. Evidentially God really
    > wanted us to know it. ;-)
    >
    >
    >> The one thing that does bother me is the age of the earth. We know,
    >> scientifically, that it is at least 4.55 billion years old. This is
    >> due to the "a mass must be at least the age of it's oldest part".
    >>
    >> Or is it?
    >>

    >
    >
    > Great question.
    >
    > We don't "know." We only "believe" based on data using methods we
    > presently have at our disposal.
    >
    > Many years ago we didn't even have methods to determine age. Many years
    > from now we may have better methods.
    >
    > Someday we will definitely know for sure.
    >
    >
    >> We also have the scientific "young earth" method which measures helium
    >> production and loss in the atmosphere and ironically dates the earth
    >> at around 3.5m years.
    >>
    >> Which is right?

    >
    >
    > Or is either "right"?
    >
    > When you get down to the nitty-gritty, who really cares?
    >
    > I'm more interested on how old my clothes, shoes, and now, the
    > apparently defective sump pump is.
    >
    > If it were 3.5M to 4.55G years, would it make any difference when
    > comparing the Biblical view of Creation? There would still be scoffers.




    And if the Universe has twice the mass that they originally thought
    because they found a mistake in the calculations? Where does that leave
    the other calculations? Until all is proven there is a certain amount
    of faith an both sides that they are right. So show respect.
    What happens if we do come to the end and God Says yes you did figure
    out how I did it, Great. Neither side will know until that time so show
    respect.
    caver1




    >
    >> Or is it the bible, which dates the earth at a factor
    >> of a millionth of the "old earth" method. Or roughly 4,000 years BC.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Well, here's the whole answer (I posted it in another message): The
    > Bible gives no age of the earth, or when it was created, other than
    > referring to "days." We don't really know what "days" mean, since the
    > sun wasn't created until day #4, and that is our current basis on the
    > length of a day and year. We even "adjust" the computed results of the
    > half-life of Cesium to make it fit into our understanding of a "day."



    Technically not true. The heavens and the earth were formed before the
    creative days. Light was seen from earth so as to a division of night
    and day on day four. Why the sun and moon could not be seen it does not
    say. Myabe the Sun didn't have enough mass yet, maybe there was to nuch
    debris in earths atmosphere for the light to penetrate, the bible
    doesn't say. Maybe science will answer that. Day four did not say that
    the sun or moon were created.




    > Someone on Venus or α Betelgeuse would certainly have a totally
    > different point of view in such an argument. In fact, nowhere in the
    > Bible does God tell us that Earth is His only Creation. Science is kind
    > of leaning to life elsewhere, and the Bible has no answer, except what
    > God wanted us to know -- with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.



    I always found it hard to believe that God created the whole Universe
    just to balance things for the earth. So there must be possibilities of
    other life out there some where. The bible does give example of that in
    the angles. Other intelligent Beings. What are they? Remember that the
    Bible was written with the understanding of the time.



    > Other humans have tried to date Creation by using the ages of the old
    > timers, but who knows whether there were many other generations that
    > were not significant enough to tally?
    >
    > Again, God told us all we need.
    >
    > Isn't Satan the one who always tries to tell us additional stuff? Didn't
    > he even try to con Jesus in the Wilderness?
    >
    > Now consider what I said about the someone's viewpoint from Venus or α
    > Betelgeuse. Would we not have the same problem trying to get a
    > non-Christian to "see" what a Christian sees? Or understand it?
    >
    > Paul gave us the lesson in 1Corinthians:
    >
    > 18For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
    > perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For
    > it is written:
    > "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    > the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
    >
    > 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher
    > of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For
    > since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know
    > him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to
    > save those who believe. 22 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look
    > for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews
    > and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both
    > Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For
    > the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of
    > God is stronger than man's strength.
    >
    > There is a lot of wisdom there. Many of my years went by before I
    > started understanding it. Actually, I was 40, and I often say it was my
    > wandering in the wilderness, lost, for forty years, just like Moses and
    > crew. That's how long I took to be "cleansed" of my really bad wickedness.
    >
    >
    >> I've got a headache.
    >>
    >> Anyone got any aspirin?

    >
    >
    > Watch out for bleeding ulcers. They nearly killed me in 2003 when I took
    > aspirin regularly for headaches. Funny, the daily headaches disappeared
    > when I retired! ;-)
    >


  12. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Wes Groleau wrote:
    > Moog wrote:
    >> Yup. I'd agree with that, although the carbon dating method is likely
    >> to be accurate. Don't scientists give it a +/- 1% accuracy rate.

    >
    > Carbon-14 dating relies on certain assumptions that cannot be proven.
    >



    In some circumstances it can be off further than that.
    caver1

  13. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    caver1 wrote:
    > John F. Morse wrote:
    >> Moog wrote:
    >>> John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>>
    >>>> I have no conflicts whatsoever with Genesis' creation and evolution.
    >>>> Not knowing with certainty (there is no proof) whether creation
    >>>> happened in six 24-hour days or not, or whether man has walked the
    >>>> Earth far longer than someone's guess that we were all created just
    >>>> 6000 years ago. Not knowing what is unprovable doesn't bother me. I
    >>>> figure it is just another of those things Satan tries to confuse us
    >>>> with, so we can argue and not keep our eyes focused on Jesus.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Actually John, I have a little sympathey with your viewpoint. It is
    >>> difficult to argue with vagueness. For me, the beliefs of all the
    >>> various religions of this planet are just vague enough t be
    >>> scinetifically accurate.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Don't believe or follow "religions" Moog. That is where the problem
    >> lies. "Religions" are man's twisting, with a lot of help from the devil.
    >>
    >> If you want to "argue" with yourself about what God wants, then read
    >> His book, the Bible, and see for yourself what He expects and promises.
    >>
    >> But until you are ready to really want to know the truth, you won't
    >> recognize it without the Holy Spirit to guide you. His help is free;
    >> all you need to do is ask. Do so inside your closet so nobody else
    >> will know and be tempted to laugh at you.
    >>
    >> You *will* discover because God said: Knock and the door will be
    >> opened. Seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be forgiven.
    >>
    >> That idea is found in many places in the Bible. Evidentially God
    >> really wanted us to know it. ;-)
    >>
    >>
    >>> The one thing that does bother me is the age of the earth. We know,
    >>> scientifically, that it is at least 4.55 billion years old. This is
    >>> due to the "a mass must be at least the age of it's oldest part".
    >>>
    >>> Or is it?
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Great question.
    >>
    >> We don't "know." We only "believe" based on data using methods we
    >> presently have at our disposal.
    >>
    >> Many years ago we didn't even have methods to determine age. Many
    >> years from now we may have better methods.
    >>
    >> Someday we will definitely know for sure.
    >>
    >>
    >>> We also have the scientific "young earth" method which measures
    >>> helium production and loss in the atmosphere and ironically dates the
    >>> earth at around 3.5m years.
    >>>
    >>> Which is right?

    >>
    >>
    >> Or is either "right"?
    >>
    >> When you get down to the nitty-gritty, who really cares?
    >>
    >> I'm more interested on how old my clothes, shoes, and now, the
    >> apparently defective sump pump is.
    >>
    >> If it were 3.5M to 4.55G years, would it make any difference when
    >> comparing the Biblical view of Creation? There would still be scoffers.

    >
    >
    >
    > And if the Universe has twice the mass that they originally thought
    > because they found a mistake in the calculations? Where does that leave
    > the other calculations? Until all is proven there is a certain amount
    > of faith an both sides that they are right. So show respect.
    > What happens if we do come to the end and God Says yes you did figure
    > out how I did it, Great. Neither side will know until that time so show
    > respect.
    > caver1
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >>> Or is it the bible, which dates the earth at a factor
    >>> of a millionth of the "old earth" method. Or roughly 4,000 years BC.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Well, here's the whole answer (I posted it in another message): The
    >> Bible gives no age of the earth, or when it was created, other than
    >> referring to "days." We don't really know what "days" mean, since the
    >> sun wasn't created until day #4, and that is our current basis on the
    >> length of a day and year. We even "adjust" the computed results of the
    >> half-life of Cesium to make it fit into our understanding of a "day."

    >
    >
    > Technically not true. The heavens and the earth were formed before the
    > creative days. Light was seen from earth so as to a division of night
    > and day on day four. Why the sun and moon could not be seen it does not
    > say. Myabe the Sun didn't have enough mass yet, maybe there was to nuch
    > debris in earths atmosphere for the light to penetrate, the bible
    > doesn't say. Maybe science will answer that. Day four did not say that
    > the sun or moon were created.
    >




    Sorry I was wrong. Light was in the first day. The lights in the forth
    day were the lights in the vault of heaven to mke certain things by.
    Evidently the stars of the universe could not be seen from the earth
    until then. For who knows what reason.
    Its been awhile since I have read that so I should have checked before
    opening mouth.
    caver1

  14. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : Me, too. I am just hoping that Hawking lives long enough to see it,
    : as well. It is basically a proof of his life's work. His condition
    : has gotten pretty damned bad. Though he is still teaching, he is
    : nearly completely paralyzed...
    :

    True. I'm hoping he lives long enough for something useful to come from
    stem cell research, he could end up in his 80s and cured!
    Crippled from age and severe atrophy, but at least he'll be able too...
    ummm... you get my point!



  15. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : Some beliefs do not deserve respect, nor do some people. I do not
    : respect anyone who feels it is important to kill others in support of
    : ther religious beliefs. But many religious sects do believe that this
    : is necessary. I also do not respect any person that has not earned
    : it.
    :


    :-)



  16. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    news:KbWLj.90410$D_3.26495@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    : Cork Soaker wrote:
    : > : Cork Soaker, not even a valid name.
    : >
    : > PMSL. Ok.
    :
    :
    : No, NOT OK!
    :
    : PMSL is not a word, therefore conveys no knowledge.
    :
    : But that is your usual spew isn't it?
    :

    Oh well, if it isn't a word!

    You sir, are a genius. We all think so, and you are loved by all. Bye!

    Is that a word?



  17. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    : There you go again, using "everyone" when you don't have a clue.

    Everyone does know this, apart from you. You are not a person of any worth
    or intelligence. Are you disagreeing? This is not true? Oh well, one
    person doesn't know, woe is me.

    :
    : I love watching you demonstrate you ignorance.
    :
    : You should consider pulling out the cork, and soaking your head.

    Again, showing your intellect. You have no idea what a cork soaker is.
    You're a comedy of comedies, you really are.



  18. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question


    : If it is so boring for you, why do you participate? Why don't you plonk
    : me, or unsubscribe from this group, and go find something exciting that
    : you prefer to do?

    I wasn't referring to you, but you are now in my killfile because you're a
    child who was never loved.

    Why don't you leave? You haven't said anything useful and you're defending
    nonsense.

    :
    : Perhaps puking your rant in your Windows groups is your preference.

    Mine now is it? You're the only ranting, my confused, low-grade friend.



  19. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Moog wrote:
    >> John F. Morse illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> John. Sorry. I've snipped the above stuff as I feel it is possibly the
    >> wrong place for such a discussion.
    >>
    >> I mean no offence by doing it, it is obvious you are a deeply
    >> spiritual person and your views, although completely different to
    >> mine, are well thought through and make perfect sense. It's certainly
    >> not the usual religious dogma I hear.
    >>
    >> Me. I'm pretty much of the opinion that this is our lot. We have to
    >> make the most of it and leave a legacy of goodness with our offspring.
    >>
    >> Things may change for me in later life, but at present, I doubt it.
    >>

    >
    >
    > No problem, and I hope everything works out for you.


    I'll try my damnedest to make sure it does. However, it's my daughters
    that I want things to work out for now. My wisdom is in the process of
    being passed on to them (poor dears).

    >>>> Ouch. I'll take that under advisement. Perhaps Paracetamol would be
    >>>> the senisble option?
    >>>>
    >>> That might work. Right now my VA doctor has me taking one 325 mg coated
    >>> aspirin per day. The coating protects the stomach lining.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Smarties - as we call them over here (I believe North America has a
    >> smarties brand that is completely different to ours)
    >>

    >
    >
    > I don't know. I haven't been in a drug store in years. My meds are
    > mailed to me unless it's something new prescribed on the day of a doctor
    > visit. Then I just grab them from the pharmacy in the VA Hospital.


    Smarties are Crispy coated candy chocolate drops. Also used to
    describe some coated drugs. ;-)

    >>> It is for thinning my blood because I had two stents inserted last May.
    >>> I also take Plavix so there are no sticky platelets to clog up on the
    >>> stents. Plavix can make me bruise easily, and if I get a cut, like
    >>> trimming a fingernail cuticle, I can bleed for hours if I don't apply
    >>> pressure. It's not that I'm bleeding very hard at all, but it can really
    >>> mess up a keyboard, mouse, mousepad, .... More cleanliness aggravation
    >>> than any medical emergency.
    >>>
    >>> I haven't really experienced any headaches (migraines) since 2004, when
    >>> I stopped working. There was a lot of job stress to get parts milled by
    >>> an always impossible due date, long hours at work (12/6 or worse),
    >>> fluorescent lighting bothering my already-poor eyesight, sinus problems
    >>> all over my head, etc. Since I am free from all of those except the
    >>> sinus stuff, and I'm not frequently leaning over a VMC mill table
    >>> examining some small detail or loading a part, doing tilting actions
    >>> that may cause some of the sinus problems, I'm not suffering.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Excellent news.
    >>
    >> My headaches are, like yours predominantly down to my poor eyesight.
    >> Actually, one eyeball has limited sight and the other one strains to
    >> compensate leaving me with severe migraines.
    >>
    >> They aren't overly bad at present though, and I get maybe 2/3 bad ones
    >> per annum.

    >
    >
    > I used to get almost one per day when I worked at Southwestern Bell
    > Telephone Co., now called AT&T. Sometimes the only "cure" was a hot
    > shower and then trying to get some sleep.


    One a day. Blimey. You must have had an awful time of it.

    >> Thanks for the discussion BTW.

    >
    >
    > You are more than welcome. Thanks for the opportunity.
    >
    > I just came up from the basement, and discovered my 20-year-old sump
    > pump is not bad. Only the actuating switch was not snapping when the
    > float was at the top and raising the lever. A few manual pokes and pulls
    > with a straightened coat hanger wire with a hook bent in the end has
    > loosened it, and I think it will be OK for awhile now. Maybe another 20
    > years. ;-)
    >
    > It pumped water for 30 minutes. Water that was backed up in the two tile
    > pipes that probably go around the foundation.
    >
    > Now I can quit worrying how much it will cost me, and go to bed and get
    > some sleep. It's 0921 here (CDT), so you could say I have my days and
    > nights mixed up a little. ;-)


    Heh. Enjoy John.

    --
    Moog

    "If this is gonna be that kinda party I'm gonna stick my dick in the
    mashed potatoes"

  20. Re: dansguardian/christian parental controls question

    Cork Soaker wrote:
    > "John F. Morse" wrote in message
    > news:KbWLj.90410$D_3.26495@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
    > : Cork Soaker wrote:
    > : > : Cork Soaker, not even a valid name.
    > : >
    > : > PMSL. Ok.
    > :
    > :
    > : No, NOT OK!
    > :
    > : PMSL is not a word, therefore conveys no knowledge.
    > :
    > : But that is your usual spew isn't it?
    > :
    >
    > Oh well, if it isn't a word!
    >
    > You sir, are a genius. We all think so, and you are loved by all. Bye!
    >
    > Is that a word?


    "Genius"?

    Sure. Describes me to a "T"! ;-)

    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, Intel, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9 10 LastLast