-
Posts
689 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by JustinW
-
You would think that something that isn't real would not have a measurable pressure.
-
Astrocat5, Okay you keep pointing to Bornoulli to prove that expansion creates pressure change, but point me to a study that shows that this change IS occuring. Give me some measurements or numbers or SOMETHING to prove that the universe is acting the way that you imply. It seems that all of your theoretical musings have little to go on besides the observable expansion. You keep reffering to Newton for gravity speeding things up and Boyles for the expansion, but it seems that in your scenario of the blackhole, that Newtons law should overpower Boyles law. If something was drawing us in at a faster and faster rate, this would definately override an expansion of things in all directions. We might expand, but it would be a directional expansion and speeds would be different in different regions.
-
Only as much as it is nowhere.
-
Could depend on what makes you happy. Some might derive pleasure from other people's suffering. That sort of happiness wouldn't gain someone admittance to heaven I wouldn't think.
-
Yeah this so well illustrated by the link I provided. (sarcasm) Isn't it wierd how most private schools not only meet but surpass the standards. This doesn't quite answer my question. Can you be a little more specific on HOW Reagans institution of the year of the bible had a negative affect on the teaching in schools. http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html Here is another link that directly connects christianity with the founding of America as spoken by the founders. Why is it so difficult to believe that the founding of this country was influenced by religious beliefs?
-
As well He did. I don't think heaven and hell is decided by any church, and neither did Jesus. I think for most theist believers the dicision resides in the heart, not in the opinion of others and especially not in the church. This could be argued by catholics though, who believe that to go against the church is to go against God. Judeism only requires that a person be spiritual to gain heaven. Some other religions believe that it is a person deeds in life that earn him a place in heaven.
-
imatfaal, I know, I know, I knew I would catch hell for putting that on there. The fact is though that the founding fathers were religious and were influenced by judeo-christian beliefs. The glenn beck link was just to prove that there are two sides to this argument, and the second link was to illistrate that the same founders provided by the link from iNow were in fact religious. And that religion played a part in who they were and the decisions that were made conserning the founding of this country. I don't see why religion can't be used in a classroom to better understand people in history and how they were influenced by their religion.As to creationism, I pretty well stand with you on the subject Keenidiot, but I don't see why religion can't be included for a better understanding of how things came about. Even if it is only mentioned with spontaneous generation, past concepts, and vitalism. Okay let me ask the forum this... In '83 when Reagan anounced a year of the bible, what bad things came of it. Did muslim and jewish kids convert to christianity in mass? Was there another inquasition? I'm not understanding why this is thought to be applied in a way that will indoctrinate kids or even negatively effect them.
-
This was in the link you provided for the saccone resolution. So in this context I could see it being a benifit in a history class and that was what I was talking about. I took this article as presenting the religious aspect of history, not science, although I'm sure there are some aspects of science that religion has had a positive influence on. http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/11/02/are-we-a-christian-nation/ http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm Since the links you gave were the work of some who are considered leftwing, the top is someone who is definitely considered right wing, but an interesting bit of info to say the least. The link I provided on the bottom are some words from the same people that your links refer to. I only thought it fair to include some of the same founders and their words. Yes, lets hope that the truth is never bent to include ideology.
-
Did the quran help to shape the decisions of our founding fathers? I don't recall too many Muslims signing the declaration or being major players in providing the foundation to build this country. If I'm wrong then I would probably support such a thing under that context. Are you saying that religion can't even be brought up? I would say that would leave out a vital understanding of history. About who the people were. How those people lived and thought. Why some people chose to fight or die. There is a lot of aspects where religion can be brought up in a lesson to be used as a tool for understanding and not as a way to indoctrinate a belief system. You're the one who talks about academic integrity. Is it not reasonable to consider that the judeo-christian religion was a big part of our founders lives, and that these beliefs played a big part in the decisions that formed our history. I'm not supporting the preaching of religion but also am not against the understanding of the role religion has playedin history. You can't take the human factor out of everything. As long as popularity exists you'll get an argument, true or not. And this really depends on what exactly you're talking about. The creationist thing. .yeah, I get that their argument goes against any observable evidence, but it is still something that is being taught to their children that they don't believe in. What's wrong with saying " this is what the evidence has shown us. . .this is some other things that people believe about the subject, and here is the evidence for that". It would still drive the creationists crazy, but then they wouldn't have a leg to stand on because their side is still being presented. I understand what you're saying,also this idea probably wouldn't be plausible in an arena with so many different beliefs, but it is just an idea.Now global warming on the other hand. It would be a shame to not have an ongoing debate on this subject. I would miss reading you and JohnB throwing arguments back and forth. You have to admit the subject is controversial and it's validity for cause, effect, and method are somewhat debatable. Why teach this in schools as pure fact when so many things about the subject are argued logically. Why not present it like" this is what the studies have shown and this is what the opposition believes and why"?
-
This is what I previously said, But with that being said. What's wrong with this It doesn't sound like they are teaching and applying religion. It sounds more like they are trying to teach a better understanding on what drove our founding fathers to make the decisions that they made. While I don't want schools preaching religion, I also feel that it is illogical to think that religion can never be mentioned. If only to better understand the drive behind some people's thoughts and movements. Moontanman, Maybe opinion was a bad choice in words. I meant that it is known that some things are taught in a way that support a certain belief or ideology, but I don't see what the big deal is with teaching both sides of the story when the subject matter is controversial or in which the validity of facts is argued by a good number of people.
-
Here is an article that was provided in another thread that I thought was interesting and I think relevant to the subject to some degree. http://discovermagazine.com/1992/mar/vacuummatters9
-
Actually it was more like claim and defend.
-
I know but until the last couple of centuries this is how it's been. I think probably we have seen the last of that sort of conquer and claim warfare, at least for a while. Like I've said before, they declared their independance and fought a war to keep it. If that isn't the way you gain legal rights to be your own country then we should be speaking in Brittish accents right now. Very true, once III kicks off it is doubtful that cooler heads will prevail. Look, I'm not saying that Israel isn't at fault on some matters. But I choose to support Israel for a number of reasons. First is their legal claim through their own war of independance. Another is the fact that yes, they are our allies in a region that the others we have are shaky at best. Another would be for the fact that Israel only atttacks in defense of itself or with a reasonable amount of threat to justify attack. And another would be that most of their enemies are our own as well. I could probably hash out a few more if I wasn't in a hurry.
-
As well as from the otherside too. It's not that I said it was just opposed by atheists. Like I said, it was just the most opposition that I've heard has been from athiests. I don't really care who believes what or doesn't believe what. I would argue against teaching creationism for the simple fact that it is not rellevant to the basic studies that a child learns in school. Also and probably most of all because public schools do not need to pick and chose the winners and losers of arguments based on opinion rather than factual consensus. Things like the teaching and applying of religion need to be taught at home, not in the class room. I just went into a long spill (which I just erased) with examples and stories about what is being taught could be construde by different ideologies to be against theirs, but I think I can make this simpler. Mostly I was talking about religion as I explained above. But I was also talking about arguments such as global warming, civil rights heroes, American Indians, etc...There can be alot of differences of opinion and I would prefer that public sector schools stick with the facts as best they can.
-
I think we are getting two different time frames mixed up. When talking about the Israeli placement there it is not so simple. Jews have been in that area for well over 2000 years. The legal placement of them by Brittain then by their declaring of Independance and subsequential war that followed did push a lot of people out of their homes. It may have not been right but those are the consequences of war. When talking about the recent removal of palestinians I just suggested that their legal claim needed to be looked at within relation to where they build. This makes sense to me in as far as Israel holding their borders against those who believe them to be an enemy that needs to be wipe off the face of the earth. Palestinians feel that they have a right to own the holy land as does Israelis, but Israel holds a legal claim at present and Palestine does not. I'm not saying that religion isn't the main cause of this conflict, just that when looked at from an objective view point, the legal right takes precident over religious rights. What happened in the past up to Israel gaining a legal claim is irrelevant when discussing the realities of todays conflict from a legal and defensive standpoint. If we give Israel back to Palestine on the basis that it used to be owned by Palestinians, why wouldn't we do this for every other part of the world. By that logic the US would in fact not just go back to the Native Americans, but would partly go back to the Spanish, French, Brittish, and anyone else who stepped foot on and claimed a piece throughout history. It's illogical. By the way those so called jack asses who say that Israel is there because God wants them to be there are irrelevant also. As I've stated before they did declare their independance and fight a war to win it. That is where their legal claim comes into play.
-
You've got a good point Phi, but that is a reach. I could see it a little more clearly if Mitt Romney were the one to say these things (which he probably is). So the basic idea you have with this is, Santorum and others like him are speaking out against ideology being taught in public schools so they can take over public schools and be one step closer to owning and controling the world. Hmmm. . . You don't think that they (and others like them) might have a lagitamate arguement to at least some small degree? I think this is probably a more rational explanation than what Santorum was trying to make it seem like. And yes, a more rational explanation than what Phi made it seem like also. Sorry but every time I've read this stuff from you it has always been about the ploy of America to start this war between good and evil. I don't by it and also don't think it is as rampant in the US as you would have everyone believe. I may not be as old as you, but I don't remember any big debates on the issue of TEACHING creationism in schools. In fact the most I've heard about have been from athiests protesting the saying of "In God we trust" in the National Anthum, or giving children a moment of silence to pray and such. But all in all this sort of thing is natural from both sides of the arguement at a local level. You want your kids to learn things that are fundamentally important to you, don't you. All we can do is hope that reasoning prevails in the matter and that our public schools stay unbiased about those kinds of issues.
-
Sorry, I't seems I did misread that last post. I think it was this that I still had in mind to adress. As for the history of the region, I might not know it with great detail but I have a common grasp of the historical events that surround the region. I even have these fancy little time lines I can reffer back to if necessary. Another thing you are inaccurate on is Israelis being there by religious rights. Religious rights or not, the Brittish are the ones who opened the door on that one. Israel won it's independance which gave them legal rights. Now the only arguements that Palestinians can use to force their way in are religious rights.
-
I didn't think about it that way, but now that you mention it, it does make sense. It would also explain why divorse is much easier now days than it was when we were historically more fundamentally religious.
-
I don't think so, we can observe things being affected by dark energy, such as the expansion of super clusters. I don't think that dark energy and vacuum energy are the same. (if such thing as dark energy exists) Dark Energy is just a name we use for something that we can't see. We just observed the result and labeled the cause as Dark Energy until we can learn more. It would only make sense that the universe has an overall pressure (assuming the universe is a closed system) and being able to measure that pressure would theoretically tell us exactly what the universe is doing as a whole. At least that is what I think until someone can redirect my thinking with a logical reason of why it doesn't work that way. (which happens more often than not.)
-
You also have to ask yourselves if they were there by legal right before they were removed, or if they were only there by religious right. If they weren't on land that is legally occupied by Palestine, then it would have been well within Israels rights to move them off. With as many enemies that surround Israel it is illogical to think that they shouldn't control their borders with the utmost care.
-
We could also look at the current president of Iran. It seems I remember him talking about such a battle between good and evil only within the last couple of years. I haven't heard anyone talk about such. The big issue with them has been the teaching of things that they consider to be ideological and arguable without teaching the oppostion's side as well. But on a college level I can see your point about what Santorum said. He tried connecting left wing ideology as teaching against a certain faith in colleges which I believe was a fallicy.
-
Might depend on where you're standing at the time.Might be the truth is worse in knowing than not.
-
WTF are you talking about Moontanman? You're really trying to spread the message today aren't you. It's funny that this little end of days BS that you keep preaching can be translated into most any religion practiced around the world. You may be right on a certain level Phi. But I don't think the overall intent of conservatives are to abolish state run education. It wouldn't make sense to do so. I have heard some decent examples by people who feel that a certain amount of indoctrination is going on. But on the other hand hand I don't believe that it is a left wing conspiracy to get people's children to fall in line with their ideology either. All I can say is that if it is a ploy to privatization, it is not a very good one.
-
If you'll notice most documentaries are produced with the intent to sway people emotionally towards a given goal. The fact that there are Palestinian documentaries more than Israeli documentaries tells you that history is not a good enough source to establish a justification for the Palestinian plight. I don't recall Canada ever calling for the destruction or liquidation of Americans or Christians either. Looked at from a Palestinian point of view I kind of agree with this.