Moontanman

I think I see where you are going....

I wasn't sure where to put this, so much has come out of late about the dangers of various plastics and the chemicals used to produce them and the chemicals that leach out of plastics not to mention the economics of oil and the dangers of plastics once they enter the waste stream this topic seemed to fit marginally in several possible forums... Would our civilization be better served by phasing out plastic bottles and going back to glass containers? Plastics have a lot going for them, the versatility of plastics has to be a major consideration when looking at the uses of plastics but going back to the use of glass in the places where it could be used could also be an economic boon as well. Glass can be recycled, the recycling of glass bottles was at one time considered a problem to be solved rather than a economic plus. Some points to be considered is the ease of recycling. At one time glass bottles were a thing to be sought out to recover deposits, this made for less glass bottles along side the road and an incentive for people to collect them. In reality plastics can also be recycled but for some reason plastic bottles seem to be more likely to enter the waste stream and end up in land fills and sometimes they end up floating around in the ocean in huge swarms of plastic particles. I guess the first real question is plastic more or less damaging to the environment than glass? Glass eventually becomes sand and plastic eventually becomes CO2 but glass would seem to be less harmful along the way that plastic. Would going back to glass create jobs or kill them? Expense would have to be a major consideration as well. I am sure there are facets of this I have not considered so feel free to point them out.

How are any of those things testable?

Religion, if if it doesn't make you broken then is it man's flaw? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASTrGBDw9Vc

Which people did god give this ability to "know" ? Obviously not everyone. why not? I know some wiccans, nice people... I love Xena, I watched several of those shows last night! I'm not sure what you mean by a reason for belief, i think there should be supporting evidence for people to believe something. I see no reason to believe anything that is unsupported much less unsupportable. In no other aspect of life would people believe such unsupported claims, only religion gets that pass, why?

This video may shed some light on the aspect of broken in regards to faith.

As i have said before, you are welcome to your own beliefs but not your own reality. I doubt there are many sane people, theist or atheist, who don't go around raping and pillaging just because they fear hell fire, not to mention that a great many theists don't believe in hell fire as well. No one is interrogating you for your beliefs, you joined this conversation voluntarily, and who you defend or who's side you are on isn't the issue. I don't think anyone has asserted that one group is better than another, the question has to do with reasoning ability. I would not dehumanize anyone for believing even though those who believe often assert that anyone who doesn't believe the way they do is less valuable than those who do believe the same way. this can be between different groups of Christians as easily as it is between Jews and Christians or monotheists and polytheists. Questionposer, you seem to be taking this to heart more than is justified, if it is that personal for you i suggest you stop responding to this thread...

And you wonder why you got all those negative points?

Ok, this discussion has degenerated into horse feathers again... Time to cowboy up, this has gone so far off topic i can't remember why half the stuff being asserted is being asserted. Copperhead, Genesis is not an accurate description of evolution or the origin of the universe if you ascribe to the evidence we have seen so far. Trying to twist things so they fit will not help any ones arguments and if you don't think science has any evidence i would ask you why that part of science is so wrong while the rest of it works so well. Questionposter, I believe you have talked to many religious people but as i said some place way far back in this thread "the number of people who believe in something has no bearing on it's veracity" I would like to add that how good it makes you feel has no bearing on it's veracity either. I've been in churches where people spoke in tongues, passed out, rolled around on the floor like they were having an epileptic fit but it still doesn't make them correct. The whole first cause argument is weak, I see no reason to use it unless your faith is so weak it's all you have to support your belief to you. Radioactive atoms spontaneously emit particles with no cause, you cannot say when they will decay or what makes them decay. An atom with a half life of 1000 years could last a billion years, it's unlikely, but you can't say when it will decay. I see no reason the universe cannot be a similar process where something spontaneously happens, no cause is necessary. But postulating a cause opens a whole new can of worms, like what caused the cause and so on. saying that god is somehow above needing a cause is not supportable by anything but fantasy. I am honest enough to say i don't know if there is a deity of any kind, I see no real evidence of a god, but religion is real, there can be no doubt, there are probably 50 churches within 20 miles of me, to me religion seems like the perfect ponzi scheme, you don't know if your right until it's too late to know if you are right... I think the broken part of this comes in when you consider that religion allows assertions that in any other part of your life the questions would be overwhelming. No one I know would believe anything not having to do with religion so easily, so overwhelmingly, with such absolute surety. I just happen to be unable to be so unquestioning about something so important. That is where the idea of broken comes in, why does religion get a pass on such outrageously unsupported claims? A Tripolation good to see a reasonable theist check in...

No, as a matter of fact I spent many years clinging to that particular line of bullshit, I tried to justify it in many ways but eventually I had to be honest with my self and admit it was just bullshit. The bible is just a rehash of myths about god borrowed from surrounding cultures. nothing is more dishonest than creationism and the book they worship... yeah, keep on lying to your self, that makes it all better...

I'm pretty sure he set you straight dude...

Actually the water cycle shows no influence that cannot be explained by naturalistic causes, no god or gods is needed.... It's all horse feathers to start with and has no basis in reality, why would you even try to twist such obviously false writings to match reality? if we get to interpret this to mean what ever we want then it becomes meaningless to start with...

Thanks for the advice guys, i think i got it, hitman found some malware, now i have to see if the spam message gets sent again. I guess i need to stop surfing pr0n sites, lol

It has been suggested that i have recently down loaded a key logger program, someone keeps using my e-mail account to send out spam in spite of me changing my password several times. How do i find such a program and how do I get rid of it. I have run viral scans, McAffe, spybot search and destroy, Advanced system care and CCleaner to no avail. Can anyone suggest a course of action?

You said You said that birds predate terrestrial vertebrates, this is clearly not true, no matter how you put it there were terrestrial vertebrates before there were birds. Birds evolved from terrestrial vertebrates, specifically Theropod Dinosaurs Terestrial vertebrates existed in the form of amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, and mammals well before there were birds. And no the Diapsida do not predate the Synapsida.

Copperhead, there is no doubt that terrestrial vertebrates existed before birds, they evolved from terrestrial dinosaurs.

None the less it is not accurate, and octopus to indeed plan ahead, they learn both from experience and from watching other octopus. I used to keep octopus and they build barricades of stone to hide in, place each and every stone in a particular place and if you move them they go into a show of emotions and put the rock back where they had it the first place. They plan ahead, I had one that stalked the family cat until one day he caught it. he planned ahead, actually lured the cat into his sphere of influence and grabbed the cat. One octopus delighted in raising the lid of his tank and squirting water at people, he was very accurate, he had to take into accouut the refraction of the water. Probably not? You are going to go with probably not? Some fish actually help each other, some form friendships even across species. Fish are sneaky and they plan ahead and they have personalities. Whales cooperate in hunting, teach their young to hunt and have social skills, even culture. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/whaleculture/ Evidently not very well, crows have complex interactions, plan ahead and can be said to have culture as well. Do you have crows where you live? http://www.crows.net/culture.html

And what are the atheistic explanations for the universe? So amphibians, dinosaurs, and mammals evolved after birds?

I have to ask, have you ever really paid attention to the behaviors of animals? Even fish are not mindless automatons...

Soooo, you do not draw a line anywhere? Anything enough people tell you is probably true? How many people? Two? 100? 10,000? This is a serious question, where do you draw the line? For me the number of people who claim something is meaningless... If I went by numbers of people I would have to say that UFOs absolutely are alien space craft visiting the earth. Literally millions of people have seen them, I view religion the same way, lets see something more than what someone claims, claims are easy, evidence is hard. I was raised fundamentalist Christian, if i had a nickle for every claim of gods presence i have heard i would be rich for sure... I was told quite recently by someone I know and trust that a during church services they saw an angel walking down the center isle, no i don't mean a pretty girl either, several other people saw it too, interestingly no one saw it until one person claimed to have seen it... then several others "saw" it too....

That's not logical at all, all we know about is what we can observe, we have no idea of anything other than what we can observe. There are models that postulate that what we see as the universe is really only a small part of something else but these are models and cannot be tested at this time. But to say with any authority that nothing existed before the universe is as nonsensical as saying something exists outside the universe...

Questionposter, I will agree you do have a right to your own point of view, you do not how ever have a right to your own reality, many people claim many things, seriously, where do you draw the line?

So, what is your standard for accepting evidence? The number of people who tell you they've experienced something? Can anyone say alien abduction? I've heard it's very similar to what your brain looks like when you are having a conversation with yourself...

Where did ya park your squad car?

"If" is a very big word in that context....