If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#351
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"Thomas Borchert" wrote
DVaridel, Now, what sort of plane do you fly? Socata TB-10 Tobago. Wider cabin than a Bo, but sadly, neither the engine power nor the speed. Cool - a couple of aero clubs in Sydney stocked up on the "TB" series in the 90's, but I haven't seen them down here in Melbourne. Please pardon my ignorance (being new around here) but I'm unfamiliar with "Bo". Oh, and while I'm 'fessing up, I've assumed "OP" (separate threads) is Other Pilot? David -- There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore like an idiot. |
#352
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
: "The Physical Basis of the Direction of Time" by H. D. Zeh http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Archimedes-Point- Directions/dp/01951 17980/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_a I still like "A Brief History of Time", but Hawking. I don't agree with much of it, but it is interesting reading nonetheless. Oh you should write to him and point out his errors then. You guys are all wrong. Douglass Addams hit it right with "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe". Well, Hawkings quoted Adams fairly often so he might even agree with you. Be sure to include your views on guns. Perhaps that will help him see the error of his ways. Every one that thinks like I do should be able to own as many as they want. Take 'em away from every one else. Same for universal govt and religion. :-)) And the vote. Bertie |
#353
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Recently, Jim Logajan posted:
Jay Maynard wrote: On 2008-01-12, Jim Logajan wrote: IMHO no one with a grasp of logic and a clear understanding of the concept of causality would postulate a "beginning" to time. It would either be pointlessly self-referential or require the postulation of some sort of meta-time in which causality (something to support "before" and "after" concepts) was still applicable. But that would then beg the question of postulating a beginning to the "meta-time". _A Brief History of Time_ suggests otherwise, in chapter 9. I've never read that book, but here is a lecture of his that deals directly with the question: "The Beginning of Time" http://www.hawking.org.uk/pdf/bot.pdf As I (mis?)understand it, it postulates what I would label a meta-time (in this case Hawking labels it "imaginary time") that is basically a closed curve onto which "real time" is mapped such that "real time" has a "beginning" and "ending" points on the imaginary time and space surface. By the way, the book by Huw Price that I mention discusses Hawking's views in "Brief History" and Price doesn't agree with Hawking. It appears that Hawking has changed his view of "time" on at least one occasion. I think that at this point, the thread is going astray of the notion that science is somehow concerned with questions about these issues; these are philosophical matters that sometimes present an opportunity to be tested by science. However, having read "A Brief History of Time", I'd point out that Hawking presents more than one scenario regarding the linearity of time and paradigms for a "beginning" and "end", and it seems to me that this is an untestable question at this point in time. Another book that covers some of these issues is John D. Barrow's "The Book of Nothing", which I found to be quite enlightening about nothing. ;-) A very worthwhile read for those interested in grasping such questions as these or even just gaining knowledge about the origins of math and how the concept of the zero (and lack thereof) shaped human culture and development. To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools. Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us. Neil |
#354
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
DVaridel,
Please pardon my ignorance (being new around here) but I'm unfamiliar with "Bo". Oh, and while I'm 'fessing up, I've assumed "OP" (separate threads) is Other Pilot? Bo is short for the Beechcraft Bonanza. OP is usenet speak for "original poster". There are several TB owners from Australia at www.socata.org, some from Melbourne, IIRC (if I recall correctly). -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#355
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Recently, dVaridel posted:
"Thomas Borchert" wrote Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic, political or otherwise. This is an inflammatory statement that does not reflect the views of Creationists, however, debates on the subject normally lower to this level of name calling very quickly. As it does reflect the behaviours of Creationists, Christian and otherwise, if it doesn't reflect the views of that population it only raises questions about their hypocrasy. Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace. If only all non-Creationists stated it this way. Most try to prove that they have "The Answer" (tm). According to whom, Creationists? Scientists make no such claim. Now, what sort of plane do you fly? I'm still stuck in a Warrior but the school has installed an autopilot so I get to do a little sight-seeing! I happen to like Warriors, as I'm not in much of a hurry. Our club is acquiring a couple of Cirrus SR-22s, and I'm not all that interested in them. We also have a few (Bo)nanzas (to answer another poster's question about "Bo"), and I have yet to go up in those either. Neil |
#356
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Recently, Matt Whiting posted:
Thomas Borchert wrote: DVaridel, Creationist - In the beginning there was God, and He created everything Others - In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded Hmmmmm Here's the answer I should have given in the first place: Creationist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, so we make up this cozy feeling fairy tale with a bearded guy in it, then we go and kill or oppress people by the gazillions supposedly in the name of that guy, but really for our personal gain, be it economic, political or otherwise. Scientist - We have no idea what was in the beginning, we'll keep trying to make sense of it, but still have no idea, and that's a good thing, too, because "We don't know" is an answer we can not only live with, but one we wholeheartedly embrace. No one needs to get hurt in this process. Hmmmm Yes, Hmmm. Who created most of the nastiest weapons known to man... Hint, it wasn't creationists. Hmmm. Who used them on people? Hint... it wasn't the scientists. Some of those on the Manhattan project suggested demonstrating the power of the weapons in a non-lethal way, and others suggested that the science behind them should be openly distributed in order to reduce the temptation to use them. We know how that turned out. Just because someting *can* be done does not mean that it must be. Neil |
#357
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Recently, dVaridel posted:
In the last few years I've read that there was stuff that had done nothing forever then it exploded. It is expected to slow and then shrink back to a tight lump of stuff. Close? No, not really. Neil |
#358
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to
understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools. Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us. Well put. Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable political platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate does not yet exist. -- Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Pathfinder N56993 www.AlexisParkInn.com "Your Aviation Destination" |
#359
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
"Jay Honeck" wrote in
news:E%oij.33853$Ux2.25986@attbi_s22: To steer this back to the earlier issue, science is an effort to understand the nature of things in order to provide working tools. Engineering takes those tools and creates those things that support our society and by extension our economy. So, a president that has no understanding of science, or worse, can't tell the difference between science and religion will only do further harm to this country than the current anti-intellectual and his faithful followers have done. Any candidate that claims that they can maintain anti-scientific beliefs (such as they're not being a primate), yet can turn the downward trend in this country around is simply lying to us. Well put. Good luck finding anyone amongst the current set of presidential candidates who passes this litmus test while also offering a workable political platform. My preliminary research shows that this candidate does not yet exist. Shouldn't you be scrubbing some toilets? Bertie |
#360
|
|||
|
|||
"socialist" when describing Hillary Clinton
Jim Logajan wrote: Gig 601XL Builder wrote: Thomas Borchert wrote: Bertie, but anyone who believes the set of fairytales known as the bible is welcome to it. Actually, no, I don't think so. Ahh, your religion is restricting what others can do. Nice. Too much harm has been done by those who do. The track record is way down in the negatives on terms of benefits for society. What is your objective score for all of the postives in addition to the negatives, Tom? And atheists have been all sweetness and light. Shucks no - sometimes we go for a Guiness. How many people did Stalin have killed? Was somebody counting? Besides, did he have them killed because of their religous beliefs or because they were a threat to his power? Oh my Jim, recent history is so easily forgotten or ignored by some. Here is a little refresher on Joe Stalin: Approximately 20 million people were killed by Stalin's reegime, including up to 14.5 million starved to death for political reasons. At least 1 million were executed for political "offences." At least 9.5 million more deported, exiled or imprisoned in work camps, with many of the estimated five million sent to the 'Gulag Archipelago' never returning alive. Other estimates place the number of deported at 28 million, including 18 million sent to the 'Gulag'. What a gentleman, thank goodness he was athiest. Imagine how many people he could have killed (and so much worse!!) had he found a religion? Nice diversion attempt with the motives for his unthinkable horror, but the discussion was about making the bible unwelcome, perhaps with the threat of law, because of all the "negatives." But instead proved the point you appear to be against. Stopping religion doesn't stop bad people. In fact, attempting to stop religion would put you in fundamental agreement with Matthew Murray, who in December 2007 started shooting in a Denver church, slaughtering people in the name of athiesm because he proclaimed to hate religion. tinyurl.com/282qtx Don't blame on God or even the belief in God what can easily be explained by the nature of man. Well that begs the question whether the Bible is a work of God or a work of men. "Begs the question??" How so? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Old polish aircraft TS-8 "Bies" ("Bogy") - for sale | >pk | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 16th 06 07:48 AM |
"Airplane Drivers" and "Self Centered Idiots" | Skylune | Piloting | 28 | October 16th 06 05:40 AM |
Dispelling the Myth: Hillary Clinton and the Purple Heart | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | February 21st 06 05:41 AM |
Desktop Wallpaper - "The "Hanoi Taxi"". | T. & D. Gregor, Sr. | Simulators | 0 | December 31st 05 06:59 PM |