Huge!

[thalbergmad]

ok.  why hasn't the sun burned up yet.  huh. huh.  thalbergmad, come back here.  i want another round.  prove to me that the sun is older than 6000 years.  it just isn't. face it.  the sun can only have so many nuclear fusions that feed upon itself - because it is losing heat/energy.  it will not continue to nuclear fuse forever.  if the sun was as old as people say it is - it would have become a smoking star quite a while ago.

what about the moon?  no scientist has ever proven it is very old at all.  many moons of other planets in our solar system appear quite young as well.

say, pianowolfi, this is what is happening today.  i went on strike.  i pianoforumed most of the day.  tommorrow - i will be going to take another child to the dentist, to a parent/teacher meeting, to the park - home - clean like a blizzard anything left undone (like bedrooms). 

You are an ignoramus and i would not waste one more word on attempting to prove anything at all to you.

The reason being is that you will only ever believe what you perceive to understand from your highly edited little book of short stories of questionable authorship. If you wish to go through the rest of your life with blinkers on, it is entirely up to you.

I have wasted far to much of my time already answering your posts. I would rather engage my mantlepiece in debate as i would get far more sense.

You have infested almost every corner of this forum with your ramblings.

Thal

[pianistimo]

engage your 'mantlepiece' then.  i should hope that it would spontaneously cause the fireplace beneath to light up.  this would mimic the 'big bang' so you could come back and tell me that God is definately a HE.

[thalbergmad]

engage your 'mantlepiece' then.  i should hope that it would spontaneously cause the fireplace beneath to light up.  this would mimic the 'big bang' so you could come back and tell me that God is definately a HE.

STUPID WOMAN

[jpianoflorida]

let there be peace on earth and let it start with pianistimo and thalbergmad

[prometheus]

Just read a basic book on astronomy. There you will find the answers.

Now when you claim the sun is 6000 years old then you need to refute the evidence for accepted stellar astronomy.

And then you need to explain how the earth can have life for millions of years while the sun is only 6000 years old. Also, how did the sun come into being? How did the earth have an orbit without the sun? Etc etc.

It makes no sense at all. Your words are stupid.

[asyncopated]

I agree,

In terra pax hominibus, bonae voluntartis.

The explanation actually requires quite a lot of understanding of science.  The astrophysics course at my university is thought to 3rd/4th year physics undergrad students.  This is mainly because stars are complicated objects.  If you think the earth is complicated (and it is) the sun is just as bad (if not worse). 

One way to classify and study stars is to use a Hertzsprung-Russle diagram.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung-Russell_diagram

This classifies stars into brightness on one axis, and on the other axis, the temperature or similarly related, the colour of the star.

also, check out

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

In general, the life of a star sweeps an arc in the Hertzsprung-Russel diagram.   From bottom right, up towards the top and once it reaches its peak and runs out of fusion material, quickly drops back down on the left.  We know this because we observe many stars and can deduce this process just by looking at how stars currently behave.

To understand the how the life cycle works, we need to know some fusion.  This is the way in which the sun shines (literally).

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

The main point about fussion is that staring from hydrogen, under the right conditions, hydrogen atoms can fuse together to become helium.  In turn helium can keep fusing to become litium... and we can keep going up the periodic table in terms of atomic weight until we reach iron.  This is called the iron limit. 

https://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/nucbin.html

This is because iron is the element with the highest binding energy per nuclear particle.  This means that it take to get from iron to cobalt, we need to put in more energy than is given out in the fusion process.  So the process stops there.  Anyway, at that point the star becomes so dense that weird things happen.  Gravity kicks in.

Understanding the processes of fusion, this chain basically tells us how far in we are in the life cycle of the star.  From the light emitted by the star, we can look at it's spectra. That is, break up the light up colours and look at which colours are emmited. 

Have a look at
https://jersey.uoregon.edu/vlab/elements/Elements.html

If you click emmision instead of absorption, and click on each of the elements, you will see colours appearing at the top of the screen.  If you heat elements up hot enough the electrons will excite producing light in the process -- this is not reflection, but emmission, it generates (makes) light.  The thing about elements is that the light produced by the electrons of each element is unique.  Click on the different elements, to see the partterns.  If there is more than one type of element present, the lines will mix, i.e. the spectra of all the elements in the sun will be in the sunlight.  By the brightness of each of these lines, we can tell the approximately how much of each element is in the sun. The spectra also contains information about temperature.

Of course this is not the only method.  We can use other methods to measure properties like the mass of the sun, density, temperature etc.  So it's not just one single piece of information.  There are many experiments, models and test done to try and find these things out. 

In understanding the fusion process, we can look to how far along the chain we are.  With this we also know the time it takes (in a probabilistic sense) for the process to occur.  Form this we can estimate the age of our sun, and compare that with the age to all the other stars (suns) we see in space.

Looking back at the hertzsprung-russel diagram, what we see is a snap shot of stars at different points in their life.  This is like taking a survey of peoples ages where you live.  You get a snap shot of the population and can try to figure out the features associated with younger people and older people.  Given some information about a new neighbour moving in, you can then estimate his/her age. 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that our sun is any different from the other suns out there.  An egocentric, earthcentric or heliocentric view of the universe is usually wrong.   We once thought that the sun and all the stars revolved around the earth.  We were clearly wrong about that.

https://muse.tau.ac.il/museum/galileo/geocentric.html

If you don't believe that our sun is any different from all the other suns we see, then it simply cannot be 6000 years old.  There is absolutely no process possible that we know of that can explain our sun being 6000 years old.  It's like saying that a baby was born 6 feet tall with a beard. 


P.S. Haha... whilst typing tis prometheus wrote the previous post.. and of course you can pick up and astronomy book and read it. 

P.P.S  Pianistimo -- I disagree with talbergmad about one point.    You are not stupid.  As you can see, the arguments that I have presented are ridiculously complicated. 

As I have pointed out, these ideas don't even kick in until you have a firm understanding about quantum physics, nuclear physics, some plasma physics, and a good grounding of classical mechanics, electromagnetism and many other areas.  It's not in anyway reasonable for you to be aquainted with these things.

[prometheus]

I would have tried to explain some things to her. But the past has proven this not to be very effective, let me put it that way.

She still doesn't know what the theory of evolution is. She things it is random. While I have told her 20 times that this is not true and explained it in detail.

Now when it comes to stars, the subject is way more complex.

It is not that she is stupid, though she might be or might be very smart, she just doesn't want to accept nature as she is. She doesn't want to take an unbiased view at reality.

[asyncopated]

I would have tried to explain some things to her. But the past has proven this not to be very effective, let me put it that way.

She still doesn't know what the theory of evolution is. She things it is random. While I have told her 20 times that this is not true and explained it in detail.

Now when it comes to stars, the subject is way more complex.

It is not that she is stupid, though she might be or might be very smart, she just doesn't want to accept nature as she is. She doesn't want to take an unbiased view at reality.

Well, you can't say i didn't try.  Lets see what she says.  The hope is that one day she will stop pretending to be deaf and actually start listening.  As long as there is hope i will try. 

Anyway, i rather enjoyed writing that post.  However long it may be.   I never liked astrophysics as an undergrad and never imagined that I would one day be explaining this, of all topics to someone.   

Also it's nice to get back to the original claim in this thread.  At least it has some bearing to space...

[donjuan]

post deleted

[thalbergmad]

asyncopated - I too enjoyed your post. It will probably be the next one that I won't enjoy that much.

Thal

[prometheus]

Hi, thanks for your post

[pianistimo]

the reason we agree to disagree is that our basis for the beginning of knowledge is different.  i never took my science textbooks at face value because i never believed i descended from apes.  nowdays, some of darwins theories are proven wrong not by religious believers but by geneticists.  also, if we are the ONLY living specks in space right now - after studying countless parts of our solar system (agreed that it's only as far as we can see) how can we ACCURATELY measure anything.  they are guestimates.  put into textbooks as facts.  these facts are shifting daily as we learn new information.

but, my basic tenent is that God can create anything in the age that he wants it to appear.  again, i say that adam and eve were created adults - so what is keeping God from playing a little joke on us and forcing us to say we don't know everything.  i may have a seventh grade understanding of science (and possibly grammar - as i was going thru the sat with my seventh grader and missed a grammar question while she got it right) - but i never said that i thought i was a scientist.  i'm not arguing on a scientific basis - but i feel that science will always prove the bible correct - because faith is believing without seeing.  if we saw it - then there is no need for faith.

now, you've already mistaken me - i bet - because you'll say 'see, she won't accept scientific facts.'  but, how many of these are fact as we get farther and farther into the universe.  scientists even say that studying insects is more involved than planets.  now that's amazing, too.  what i say - is 'go to school - study science - study medicine ...' but don't rely on it to help you understand why you were born and what your purpose is here on earth. or, what will happen to you after you die.  God's word tells us where we came from, what our history was (up to the point that He wants us to know - and lets us scientifically research what we think happened before - even though there was nothing - no time no space) and we can decide whether to believe it or not.  i choose to believe it.  it doesn't make me any less of a person to belive something different than you.

what i feel is kind of strange is that the passion for not letting people believe what they truly believe is almost like 'you must believe as i do, or you are worthless.'  this, to me, shows that love is missing and that love is an element of the universe that is not categorized.  it is a basic building block but is often forgotten amidst arguments that really don't matter.  we're all going to die.  the stupid ones with the smart ones.  solomon said that and was fairly frustrated at the time - that all have the same end result.  that is why he said the excessive reading of books (and i say excessive) only leads to a certain unsurity as to which book is right!  they all seem to say something slightly different.  especially when it comes to time/space/beginnings.  now - if i die and you die - and i have  seventh grade mentality and win the lottery of the kingdom of God (although i don't think it 's a lottery - but rather an invitation) - then i am smarter than i look.  if there is nothing after death - we are both in the same space of nothing.  so it doesn't matter in the long run who is smart anyways.  we can't live forever by ourselves. 

ps i think that alongside science there is plenty of room for ethics, morality, and God.  i don't claim to have all the scoop on those either - but i am reading the bible more and more and i think that it has more answers on these topics than science.  science argues about whether it is right to start messing with mars - when we have starving people here.  how long do you think it is going to take to make mars inhabitable.  i say that is stupid.

[prometheus]

See, she didn't even read your message. She just says: "I don't believe science." while using a computer to send her message to our computers, using... yeah that what she claims she doesn't believe in. But then why does she type messages?

[pianistimo]

i didn't say science or computers were wrong or evil.  it's how you use them.  if you are using them to 'put women in their place' and insult people - that's what i beg to differ.

[prometheus]

You said you don't believe computers work.

BTW, you are anti-woman. I am not. You say they have a limited role to serve their husband. You have bronze-age ethics.
You are insinuating I am 'putting woman in their place'.

[cziffra]

i didn't say science or computers were wrong or evil.  it's how you use them.  if you are using them to 'put women in their place' and insult people - that's what i beg to differ.

STUPID WOMAN

[asyncopated]

what i feel is kind of strange is that the passion for not letting people believe what they truly believe is almost like 'you must believe as i do, or you are worthless.'  this, to me, shows that love is missing and that love is an element of the universe that is not categorized.

I think that some people here are irratated because you fill us with a sense of overwhelming hopelessness. 

There is absolutely no way to reason with you.  I am really sad because of this.  I have alway  had faith in human beings -- that they always try to improve and understand, and not just stay stagnant and complacent.  You just come across as the antithesis of this idea and that really scares me.

To me you represent a finality to the human race that i shudder to think about.  I don't think that remaining in the dark by claiming that the bible explains all and that is all humanity will ever need is what god intended.

[thalbergmad]

I think that some people here are irratated because you fill us with a sense of overwhelming hopelessness. 

Could not have put it better myself.

Trying to reason with her is like trying to cut down a giant redwood with a halibut.

Thal

[ahinton]

Could not have put it better myself.

Trying to reason with her is like trying to cut down a giant redwood with a halibut.

Thal

Ooh - I've never tried that; have you?!

I know of what you write, however; it would be largely the same if, just because I happen to have the personal views that I do abot the best of modern Bösendorfer 290s, I decided to close part of my mind forthe purpose of rejecting anything to do with Steinway model Ds, Stuarts, Faziolis, Falcones, etc. - in which case I would have either missed or, worse still, discouraged, a fabulous performance of one of my piano works on a Steinway model D less than a fortnight ago.

It is, of course, each individual forum member's prerogative to espouse whatever state of open- or closed-mindedness he/she chooses at any given time; filling threads with material originating from closed-mindedness which is unrelated to the topics concerned may also be each individual member's prerogative, but it is not a commendable practice, it is an inconsiderate act, it has irritating consequences (as has already been suggested) and it is unconstructive, since it adds nothing of relevance and useful value to the discussions in hand.

Speaking personally, gross over-indulgence in this kind of writing "fills" me with less a "sense of overwhelming hopelessness" than one of overweaning proselytisation and the enervation and nausea that it causes...

Best,

Alistair

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, instead of trying to compete with known fact, based on your, or other's for that matter idea, why don't you instead tell us the basis for your particular reasoning? How do you know that what the Bible claims is true. It is no use to argue with facts, but will be of use if you should argue your religion. After all, Christianity is the most popular religion today(correct me if I should be wrong), and that there must be some reason why all Christians adhere to the belief so strongly. Why don't you provide facts or ideas supporting your beliefs and not rely only on a written word of "questionable authorship," as "Thalbergmad" said.

[debussy symbolism]

Ooh - I've never tried that; have you?!

I know of what you write, however; it would be largely the same if, just because I happen to have the personal views that I do abot the best of modern Bösendorfer 290s, I decided to close part of my mind forthe purpose of rejecting anything to do with Steinway model Ds, Stuarts, Faziolis, Falcones, etc. - in which case I would have either missed or, worse still, discouraged, a fabulous performance of one of my piano works on a Steinway model D less than a fortnight ago.

It is, of course, each individual forum member's prerogative to espouse whatever state of open- or closed-mindedness he/she chooses at any given time; filling threads with material originating from closed-mindedness which is unrelated to the topics concerned may also be each individual member's prerogative, but it is not a commendable practice, it is an inconsiderate act, it has irritating consequences (as has already been suggested) and it is unconstructive, since it adds nothing of relevance and useful value to the discussions in hand.



Best,

Alistair

Close-mindedness of some is open-mindedness to others, as in the case here. Unfortunately, or for that matter fortunately for the existence of debates, we do not have a sense of open or close-mindedness and thus result in debates such as this.

[ahinton]

Pianistimo, instead of trying to compete with known fact, based on your, or other's for that matter idea, why don't you instead tell us the basis for your particular reasoning? How do you know that what the Bible claims is true. It is no use to argue with facts, but will be of use if you should argue your religion. After all, Christianity is the most popular religion today(correct me if I should be wrong), and that there must be some reason why all Christians adhere to the belief so strongly. Why don't you provide facts or ideas supporting your beliefs and not rely only on a written word of "questionable authorship," as "Thalbergmad" said.

I know that I'm not really the one to be answering this, but I will attempt to do so purely becuse I have already suggested to susanistimo that she consider doing just what you have asked here, so far without any success; whether this is because she doesn't want to, doesn't know how to or both or neither I cannot say with certainty.

As to whether Christianity is today's "most popular" religion, I'm not sure; one would first have to agree on a definition of "popular" fit for this particular purpose and, if one uses the extent to which Christianity is practised today as the sole, or even principal, measure of its global "popularity" (hardly an unreasonable notion), then accurate statistics would need to be obtained, which would not be an easy task. It is certainly true that Christianity is becoming far more widely practised in China, for example, but then, since Islam, atheism and agnosticism are all also on the increase, one would still need to be appropriately wary of drawing unduly simple conclusions from too few facts.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Close-mindedness of some is open-mindedness to others, as in the case here. Unfortunately, or for that matter fortunately for the existence of debates, we do not have a sense of open or close-mindedness and thus result in debates such as this.

This is very true. The problem here is that, all too often, susanistimo's writings, rather than admitting of debate, display instead  a preference for putting forward her opinions and beliefs and then stirring in ample Biblical references which may or may not appear to support some of them but which for the most part seem to be merely to be filling up space that ought to be occupied instead by debate and discussion of the thread topic; this, I think, is where much of the irritation arises in other members.

Best,

Alistair

[debussy symbolism]

I know that I'm not really the one to be answering this, but I will attempt to do so purely becuse I have already suggested to susanistimo that she consider doing just what you have asked here, so far without any success; whether this is because she doesn't want to, doesn't know how to or both or neither I cannot say with certainty.

As to whether Christianity is today's "most popular" religion, I'm not sure; one would first have to agree on a definition of "popular" fit for this particular purpose and, if one uses the extent to which Christianity is practised today as the sole, or even principal, measure of its global "popularity" (hardly an unreasonable notion), then accurate statistics would need to be obtained, which would not be an easy task. It is certainly true that Christianity is becoming far more widely practised in China, for example, but then, since Islam, atheism and agnosticism are all also on the increase, one would still need to be appropriately wary of drawing unduly simple conclusions from too few facts.

Best,

Alistair

You are right, in that it is quite hard to pinpoint an exact number of Christians, and an even harder task to recognize faithful Christians that fully indulge in the religion.

Whatever the numbers may be, Christianity is definately a "pupular" religion in that there are many many followers. That deserves an explanation on the account of why so many people follow that particular religion.

[debussy symbolism]

This is very true. The problem here is that, all too often, susanistimo's writings, rather than admitting of debate, display instead  a preference for putting forward her opinions and beliefs and then stirring in ample Biblical references which may or may not appear to support some of them but which for the most part seem to be merely to be filling up space that ought to be occupied instead by debate and discussion of the thread topic; this, I think, is where much of the irritation arises in other members.

Best,

Alistair

What good is it to put forward ideas without referring to facts, and the Bible text is primarily "Susanistimo's" best source of facts, and I do not feel any resent for her for posting any sort of material that is connected with "hard" facts. Yes, it may take up space, but really, how much space is there? What I find a bit profound is the fact that Pianistimo may provide evidence of the same meaning or that of very similar meaning despite having the proposed evidence be disproved. That is the primary culprit of the staleness of this debate.

[ahinton]

You are right, in that it is quite hard to pinpoint an exact number of Christians, and an even harder task to recognize faithful Christians that fully indulge in the religion.

Whatever the numbers may be, Christianity is definately a "pupular" religion in that there are many many followers. That deserves an explanation on the account of why so many people follow that particular religion.

I agree that it is certainly one of the world's most widely practised religions and that it is practised in a fairly large number of countries, including some where it is the "established" or "official" religion. Islam is likewise practised in many countries and has an especially strong hold in those in north, west and east Africa, parts of the Far East and, of course, most of the Middle East. It is, however, reasonable to suggest that the differences between the way Islam is practised in various parts of the world are considerably less than those between the various Christian persuasions across the globe. The particular expressions of Christian practice and belief that are presented to us by Susanistimo are not uncommon but at the same time they are not particularly typical. Even within individual Christian factions - Methodist, Roman Catholic, Coptic, Quaker, Presbyterian, Orthodox - there are quite considerable divergences and differences of nuance and emphasis in the different parts of the world where their practice is to be found.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

What good is it to put forward ideas without referring to facts, and the Bible text is primarily "Susanistimo's" best source of facts, and I do not feel any resent for her for posting any sort of material that is connected with "hard" facts. Yes, it may take up space, but really, how much space is there? What I find a bit profound is the fact that Pianistimo may provide evidence of the same meaning or that of very similar meaning despite having the proposed evidence be disproved. That is the primary culprit of the staleness of this debate.

I agree with you on this; it is indeed no "good", as you put it - but then it is no "good" because it doesn't contribute to intelligent debate and discussion, which is something that susanistimo frequently seems to overlook in favour of mere personal presentation. If her beliefs are largely unquestioning and non-dependent upon scientific factual corroboration, it will be no "good" for her readers expecting any kind of debating contribution from her writings about them - only the presentation of personal statements.

I think that, unless and until this changes (and that seems an unlikely prospect), it will simply have to be accepted at face value, so that those who have something interesting to ask about, debate, discuss, etc. can move on and continue to do so.

Best,

Alistair

[debussy symbolism]

Heh! Should it not change, the other threads should also be diverted into such discussions of idea, counter-idea, idea(same again), explanation, same idea only with a few variations, etc. You could expect every thread to suffer the same fate as this one.

[ahinton]

Heh! Should it not change, the other threads should also be diverted into such discussions of idea, counter-idea, idea(same again), explanation, same idea only with a few variations, etc. You could expect every thread to suffer the same fate as this one.

Such expectation would be reasonable if not only did "it not change" but were the incessant posting of the same kinds of inflexible and limited material also to continue unabated. It is pretty obvious to you and I and others here that these "exchanges" - such as they can be considered as exchanges at all - are usually comprised of one or two parties brandishing their beliefs and rather more than one or two politely (or impolitely) responding by attempting, unsuccessfully, to urge them to "put a sock in it", "change the CD" or whatever.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

where shall i begin?  i suppose that the basis for my understanding, being that it IS the bible - would be a sad start with debussy symbolism and others here.  simply for the fact that they prefer textbooks with theories instead of fact taken by faith.  i believe the bible is fact.  now, most all of you recently posting - along with many other people who are christian(!) do not believe the bible is fact.  they think it is a combination of stories and what have you - and that it is so old that one may as well take it with the same grain of salt as '1001 arabian tales.'  of which i did have a copy with the long version and it is quite a read.  in fact, i suggest to anyone who does not want to read the bible - to read 1001 tales - because it's a good read. 

ok.  all this aside - my 'reason' for belief would be that i started out an unbeliever and needed proof myself.  in many many threads back - i mentioned several life threatening situations where i felt that prayer and divine guidance were obvious.  although each time i was taken out of a bad situation - i always seemed to get myself into another one.  and, of course, believe in God for another brief shining moment during an intense 'i'm sorry - i'll never not believe again.'  the funny thing is - that God kept treating me with patience despite my forgetfulness of His power and glory.

here's a few personal experiences:  plane downed in 30 below weather.  had to spend the night in a tent (thanking God the pilot, a friend of my step-dad's, brought one) with a coleman heater and they also brought extra wool socks. i'm positive that my feet would have turned black (after being blue) if they had not thought ahead to bring all this.  of course, the first thing was that the single engine plane had engine failure 30 miles out of fairbanks.  it was nearing nightfall - and there were several lucky (blessed) things.  the pilot was a good one and landed the plane in the snow.  set up the tent.  knew how to get the coleman heater going.  had brought sleeping bags.  etc.  all this could be known as a smart prepared person's work.  but, as the night went on - it got cold.  not a little bit cold.  freezing cold.  i started wondering if we were all going to freeze to death.  in the morning - the lovely couple suggested that we get some exercise to get warmer again.  so we made a huge sos in the snow - and by the time we were done making it (after i had said a few prayers - not sure if there was a God or if he would hear) - an army helicopter picked us up.  this may seem trite and just another snow emergency - but to me it was a real deliverance in my personal life.

i've had many others with ice and snow accidents - skiing stuff (missed trees, etc).  car.  my old boyfriend at 16 was taking us up a ski mountain and actually our car twirled around and started going backwards down the hill due to the bald tires.  i prayed on that one - that we wouldn't go over the edge of an embankment and that we would again head straight.  each time - during the prayer i told God i would believe - if He'd just help me out.  sure enough, the car went the right way.  also, we missed a head on collision on another occasion. 

then, when i had my family (each birth to me was a miracle) we had some bouts of unemployment - and amazingly a neighbors refrigerator stopped working this one week that we were literally out of food.  so i prayed.  (i also had a new baby - so wasn't able to work right away).  the neighbor came over and said 'my refrigerator mysteriously quit working - i need to unload several boxes of food because it will spoil otherwise.  then a few days later - another person that we knew just spontaneously brought food.  we never asked them.  i became a believer before i had my family - but during my early 20's - i didn't realize how many times a child could get into danger, too!

i've had answered prayers over my children, their health, bills, trials, emergencies, you name it.  i pray over it - and i really feel that God hears me!  not always an immediate answer - but some are.  the immediate ones really make me think -wow, God is awesome!  for instance, once my middle daughter had a really bad case of the flu or food poisoning and was doing the usual 3 year old wretching in the back seat when i was on a freeway going home.  she hadn't been sick before - but got sick on the way back.  there was no place to pull over - so i pulled over at the nearest offramp and found she literally passed out in the back seat.  she was so young and so lifeless.  it scared the heck out of me.  i thought, well, if God can create her - He can choose to take her away from me at any time.  but, i prayed - 'God, let someone stop and help take us to the nearest hospital (which i didn't know any in the area).'  i cleaned out her mouth, thought about cpr, but then decided that if she had something in her lungs it might be a bad idea, so turned her over my lap - hoping that anything in her lungs and mouth would go out.  moving her around - with arms this way and that - and she was absolutely lifeless.  she was over my lap and i started waving with my arms for anyone who would stop and help.  a man in a white pickup stopped after about 30 seconds!  i was expecting the worst - that he wouldn't know where the hospital was - and/or could cause more problems (being that it was in california).  he ended up being a sort of 'angel' to me - because he was on his way to the hospital to get chemo treatment and picked me and my daughter up quickly and took us straight to the hospital.  he even said i was lucky becuase it was hard to find the hospital from that area.  also, my daughter didn't 'come to' for another minute or two.  i was thinking that she was going to suffer brain damage at the least - and/or throw up again and the same thing happen again. 

to make a long story short - many things like this amazing incident have happened to me.  many.  i cannot explain them very well to anyone else because you have to experience it to believe it.  i would never change my beliefs now to not believing in God.  there are too many answers to prayer.  but, true faith is not by sight - so i don't feel that this is the absolute best way to 'find' God.  He says he is near to every one of us. 

I guess at Thanksgiving - i wish to say that i hope that each one of you finds God as some point or other in your personal life because he is the only one able to save us in this life and the next from death.  this can only be proven at the ressurrection - which i anxiously await.  i believe that he will then make Himself known to all.  i can't explain why He has allowed 6000 years of man's own goverment without Him - but perhaps He is making a point.  perhaps He is saying - adam and eve made a choice for humanity - but I will help to take the blame for sin instead of you.  despite the fact He was perfect.  We can look at creation and know God makes things very good and very perfect.  a baby is a good example. 

that is part of why i believe there is a God - and that we are not just 'specks' in the universe...but very important children to Him.  made in His image and likeness.

[donjuan]

ps i think that alongside science there is plenty of room for ethics, morality, and God.  i don't claim to have all the scoop on those either - but i am reading the bible more and more and i think that it has more answers on these topics than science.

you try to fix your lack of understanding in science by reading the bible some more.. F%#KING POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP, that is! (not like I expect you know what a feedback loop is, of course -that's highschool material)

science argues about whether it is right to start messing with mars - when we have starving people here.  how long do you think it is going to take to make mars inhabitable.  i say that is stupid.

you havent read a single science text 'at face value', yet you have theories on what science is trying to explain.  yeah. Ok then.
I don't want to waste any more of my time trying to explain sh*t to you; I'll just leave this link about a famous book called Rare Earth, which focusses on the unique nature of Earth -all the things that had to happen for it to be habitable- and how we can't live anywhere else other than here.  It's an excellent book, and everything is backed up with PROOF.

https://www.astro.washington.edu/rareearth/

[pianistimo]

proof can be many things.  it doesn't have to all be textbook material.  it can be real life experiences. 

[prometheus]

She doesn't even know what it means to know something. And what it means to have evidence. Or what evidence is.

May god protect her children from her.

[pianistimo]

prometheus, you don't even know me!  my children attend public school.  i do not stop them from reading textbooks.  you mistake me for someone who doesn't want current information disseminated.  all i'm saying is that not everyone has the same 'talents' for science.  i believe God gives each one of us a few things that we study and are good at.  my studies have been in music.  why would this make me an unfit mother?  it is like you are saying - if you are christian and read the bible you are not a good mother.  imo, it makes one a better mother.  you have a basis for teaching your children about God, morality, history of ancient times as well as helping them study their homework.  i tell my daughter to give the school the answers it is seeking on tests - because noone cares if you have a different belief structure.  they want 'pat' answers - even if they are theories.

prometheus, there is something else inherent in your obvious dislike for women.  to place them, as it were, under the useage of 'it' (as your previoius thread of God) as a sort of misplaced putdown.  i feel we are created for a good purpose to compliment each other.  from your posts - i feel that you are very anti-women, anti-religion, and basically quite ignorant of the feelings of others by what you say.  you correct some of your posts by saying 'well, i didn't mean this or that...'but the intention is obvious.  it is to hurt another person's ideology because it doesn't match yours.

i feel that to have a decent conversation with you - you would need more than a law degree.  you would need a heart.

[prometheus]

Children need their parents. Public school can't raise them.

As for the claim that I must dislike woman, I don't understand that at all. Because I used 'she' for god I dislike woman?
You are the one that things womans are slaves. Not me.

[pianistimo]

it wasn't my idea to have public school to begin with.  it's a law.  if children are being raised and taught by public school it is because they want to indoctrinate them.  this is best done by taking them in early morning to late afternoon.  i have my children the rest of the time and what i do with my children - you do not see.

[prometheus]

You teach children by example.

[donjuan]

no one is forcing you to send your kids to public school, susan.

proof can be many things. it doesn't have to all be textbook material. it can be real life experiences.

real life experiences are unreliable.  For example, people who claim to see ghosts most often see them at the foot of their beds as they are waking up.  This shows that they weren't fully awake, and therefore their senses fool them.  havent you ever heard the saying that 'the imagination is master of the senses'?

Also, why do you think the only people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are drunken rednecks in southern US?  Julia Roberts is lying naked on a beach somewhere; why hasn't she been abducted?

[prometheus]

I 'often' hear people yelling my name. But that's just my brain messing things up.

Especially when I am half asleep.

[pianistimo]

agreed about teaching by example.  and i am the first to say that sometimes my example is good and sometimes it's just sorta lazy.  like sit and talk at pianoforum.  but, hey - you all are on everytime i am.  what's going on?  the pot calling the kettle black again?

i call a truce.  a turkey truce.  right before thanksgiving.  i say - eat, drink, and be merry - for tommorrow we die.  well, hopefully not tommorrow.  and, this about julia roberts and alien abductions - really, don juan - what have YOU been drinking? 

i'm going to have a beer tommorrow and think about those lectures that prometheus put on a while back.  probably i will fall asleep listening to them.  i will not remember a word.  and thus, when we come back at it a day after thanksgiving - i will offer a few more bible verses just in case you forgot who's boss.  i mean...if you were all  my children i'd just tell you 'that's just the way it is.'  i can't help it if that's the kind of mother i am.  i didn't make myself this way.  God did.  it's all His fault.  well, not exactly. it's partly my mother's too. 

occasionally i will remember facts after listening and reading and get them in the proper order and sequence to make sense.  ususally it is after months of studying something.  i don't usually see things right away.  be patient.  maybe i will see something new about the sun or the moon - but right now i have a five year old that needs someone to read books and play with.  see - i'm being a good mother temporarily.  tommorrow - i shall be very angry if my pumpkin pie does the usual  mushy stuff in the center.

*question for you scientists:  how do you make an unmushy centered pumpkin pie?

[donjuan]

and, this about julia roberts and alien abductions - really, don juan - what have YOU been drinking? 

low sodium V8.  tastes like wallpaper glue.

see - i'm being a good mother temporarily.

good to see that.

i will not remember a word.  and thus, when we come back at it a day after thanksgiving - i will offer a few more bible verses just in case you forgot who's boss.

heeeyy how about that? you DO know the routine after all.

[thalbergmad]

i believe the bible is fact. 

How about the books that were removed from the bible, do you believe they were fact as well?

After many editions and translations, the bible says what the Church wanted it to say.

[thalbergmad]

all i'm saying is that not everyone has the same 'talents' for science. 

Obviously and we don't all have the same talents for stupidity.

[asyncopated]

Pianistimo -- after praying for guidance (thinking about it carefully), I can only come up with this explanation.

Are you the devil in disguise -- the prince of darkness, perpetuating lies and falsehood?  Are you here to test me?

I will stand firm.  I will not turn from reason, I will not turn from the path of truth -- the path I know for sure that god wants me to follow.

[pianistimo]

have you ever attended lectures at university and thought 'this is a load of ***'  but you fill in the blanks and then go on about your way.  some truth is there - but some is just plain frivolous.  people can exchange history for whatever way suits their perspective.  but, if you take very old textbooks and compare with new ones - you'll find that over time things become like gossip.  not exactly the plain truth.

now this can go for anything.  urtexts of music.  whatever - you search for the closest text to the time. 

granted - mathematics and scientific research is becoming able to predict and also to gauge and measure and compare at very quick speeds.  but, it is following a path of philosophy as well.  science is done and in the end - it is reliant upon a few 'genius.'  how do we know if they are right or wrong.  everyone believes them at face value.  why not God? 

when it comes to how huge the universe is - i haven't a clue if it was all encompassing creation or just our galaxy after genesis 2.  i mean - when it was all created in the beginning - it was still created by God, imo.  but, early man surely couldn't have seen into the universe that we see now without a telescope like the hubble.  we see an amazing assortment of 'candy' everywhere. but, no life.  i've never heard that particular thing ever discussed really.  but, then, i've not taken that many science classes.

the seeming infiniteness of the universe does seem to suggest that it might not be all the heavens that we now see - as the genesis creation after verse 2.  maybe between verses 1 and 2 we have some eons.  really there would be no way to measure the 'time' as God is not in time/space i don't think.  maybe the bible should say 'in the VERY beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  and the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters....'

II peter 3:5 'for when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed LONG AGO ( how long?) and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at THAT TIME was destroyed, being flooded with water.  but the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgement....'   

now, if 'that time' means 'noah's flood' then that would be that.  but, i tend to think it means a previous flood.  one before our creation.  because of the use 'that time.'  perhaps meaning at 'that time of creation?'

[asyncopated]

why not God? 

What i'm saying has never been not god.  I don't know very much about God.  From what i can deduce, if what i learned in all my years in a catholic school is true, god is loving, he stands for what is right, he stands for what is true. 

God did not write the bible, men did.  How can god want me to stay ignorant when I can learn about his wonderful creations?  How he designed and build the universe in all its glory.   And i have to admit, through the eyes of science we are only beginning to see bits of the story.  How can he want me to stay in darkness, and keep my mind from understanding his will and his intentions by ignoring what he has given us -- everything around us?
 
Maybe something inside me whispers that this is the only way i can touch the face of god.  To make use of what he has given me... a precious gift indeed ... to try and understand, however feeble that attempt may be, his design.

[pianistimo]

perhaps you are already learning a lot and will keep learning.  if God didn't want you to learn - He'd have put you in a black box - or not given you a brain.  or, worst case scenario - the same brain as a sheep.  we'd all be following each other around - just imitating each other.  come to think of it - perhaps that is exactly what our lives are most of the time.  we look for the smartest looking sheep and just believe what they say. 

although i tend to think that you are probably going to be a pretty great scientist/physicist/astronomer  and that because you do not rule out God - that He may well show Himself to you in the creation.  in fact, moreso to you than me.  and, yet - i feel His presence many times.  usually in the company of two or three that are believers as well.

[asyncopated]

perhaps you are already learning a lot and will keep learning.  if God didn't want you to learn - He'd have put you in a black box - or not given you a brain.  or, worst case scenario - the same brain as a sheep.  we'd all be following each other around - just imitating each other.  come to think of it - perhaps that is exactly what our lives are most of the time.  we look for the smartest looking sheep and just believe what they say. 

Haha, I have the luxury of being one of the smarter sheeps (as attested to by society, not myself, I myself think that I am rather stupid).  I can tell you that I have many more questions than I have answers.  For every answer that I can give I have 50 more questions.

I don't accept things the way they are, I don't believe what other tell me to.  I find things out and listen to what people have to say.  Ideas change, they are not constant. Facts change, but we are certainly getting better at it all the time.

We once thought that the earth was flat -- that was a fact.  We now think it's round, and have tested this in various ways, even by looking at it from space.  The more people question, the more accurate our understanding of our universe becomes.  This is not to say that all facts are set in stone.  There are those we are reasonably sure about, and there are many things (hypotheses) that we are not sure about. 

Most scientist won't make a claim unless they are extremely sure about it. Their livelihoods, careers and reputations depend on them making sure that what they claim is accurate. This means that anyone is invited to test that their claims are true. Invariable if someone makes what seems like an outrageous claim, there will be a long line of people queuing to prosecute him.

[thalbergmad]

i haven't a clue

I am going to hold onto this vital piece of information, so it can be inserted into your future posts.

Thal

[pianistimo]

but, they cannot accurately predict time even with carbon 14 dating.  that is because they don't know the exact make up of the environment (free radicals or something?) when the animal/plant/ tree was first alive.  everyone takes carbon 14 dating as perfect.  i don't.  i won't until someone takes me into a lab and proves that it is a perfect method. 

and yet, all our textbooks date things right and left in millions and billions.  how do they know.  in recent years many of these things have been modified by other means of dating (rock formation/etc).  some  parts of the grand canyon are bent all together at the same time.  all the layers of rock.  this would indicate that whatever catastrophe or volcanoe or whatever happened with tectonics - happened to many layers at once. 

i'm just looking at things and thinking, hmm.  ok.  God says this (bible) and in psalms  or job it talks about God inscribing the circle of the earth or something like that.  so, there is really nothing in the bible that says 'the earth is flat.'  that was a man's concoction.

genetics is another interest of brief reading (so far).  everyone says - mankind originated in africa.  well, wouldn't it be a trip if it was actually the middle east.  i think we are getting close - if we can do some genetic testing on the bones found in africa vs the ones in the middle east.  as far as hominoids - if they existed - they must have been before our creation - as our God made us to rule over the earth with a higher understanding and knowledge than the animals.

now, if there was a creation before ours - it would have needed another sun and moon according to the bible.