The point being, good science should always be challenged and tested. And what we have happening is that for years religious experts have gotten jobs and titles in religious studies. And when the battles reach the point of testing their expertise against real science, they fail. So what Mr. Simcha is doing, either way it go has to be a win, win for us.If it's not being challenged and tested, it's not science at all.
Let’s make a deal. Wherever creationism is taught in schools, they must also show this video and test the students on it subsequently.
Let's make a deal. Wherever creationism is taught in schools, they must also show this video and test the students on it subsequently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ZLuRYp8gkThe video is a strong reason to teach kids in school so they don’t end up wasting years figuring out the science and history of religion during what should be their productive years. Mike Mal came to the conclusion that there is no god and came to the realization that religion was not about god but about life after death. But that took him years and a lot of searching. Still has no idea that early man had religion that was based around heaven. But they had no gods. You don’t really need a god to have religion based upon good and bad and a way to heaven. Mike is still having trouble seeing the big picture. He thinks religion is Christianity. That is the thinking of most of the people who study going from the end to the beginning. Should always start at the beginning and work your way to the end. Point being. Mike thought he knew what god was. And in the end he found out he had always misunderstood what god was. Had he researched the history and understood the word god and how it changed over time, I think he could have saved years. Mike gave the reason mankind created god. I think he is way off base. He did not go to the beginning of the gods as to get the correct answer because he never gathered all the facts. Subject change. Read a book about Salem. The old genesis stories talked about “the gods" that created man. And Salem was known as a city of “the Gods". Avaris is still being discovered. Avaris is thought to be the fort and the wintering spot for the Asian rulers of the Middle Kingdom of Egypt. The Middle Kingdom is also being discovered today. I bring this up because the Garden of Eden is where a lot of creation took place and the garden is in India. Salem would most likely have been located in the Middle Kingdom. Salem is known today as Jerusalem. The internet now has Salem/Jerusalem as the city of “god". And not the city of “the gods". How can we teach the kids about the past history when the history is still being destroyed and rewritten by XXXXX? Point being. Meaning of words change for political and religious reasons. And this can be caused by movements that sort of hypnotize the thinking of certain groups of people. I think “Creation" was one of those words. And these acts of changes of understandings are always linked to a movement of some kind. Example, “Global Warming" was understood by the people, but not getting the results the political movement wanted. The political movement changed the name to “Climate Change". Which is having its meaning changed over and over again in very little ways, but they add up. It was the change in climate caused by manmade acts at first, and understood that way by the postings on CFI. But have you read any of the latest science stories in the news about how the extinction of species in the past may have been brought about by “Climate Change". Go figure, after a year the scientists themselves don’t even understand the meaning. I tried bring this issue of “Climate Change" being an unscientific title up to the CFI forum and got blasted by the movement. The Creation movement started in the 1800’s. Thomas Jefferson was able to see what Mike Mal saw without having the same trouble as Mike. Jefferson’s idea was to cut all the twisted history out of the bible and only use the bible’s logical based teachings. Jefferson wanted this country’s religion to be based upon logic and past history. Jefferson was older at the time and only worked on the NT. So no. As much as I think we should help the children learn. We cannot allow a religion to teach creation in school. So our best way of helping people right now is to keep the data on the internet correct, true, and understandable without political or religious influences. But I would like to see creation taught in all the schools if it was following the logic of someone like Jefferson. Sorry for the long post. And yea, I'll go along with your idea on the video. I like your idea too.
Let's make a deal. Wherever creationism is taught in schools, they must also show this video and test the students on it subsequently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ZLuRYp8gkThe video is a strong reason to teach kids in school so they don’t end up wasting years figuring out the science and history of religion during what should be their productive years. Mike Mal came to the conclusion that there is no god and came to the realization that religion was not about god but about life after death. But that took him years and a lot of searching... Mike is still having trouble seeing the big picture. He thinks religion is Christianity. That is the thinking of most of the people who study going from the end to the beginning. Should always start at the beginning and work your way to the end... The thing is, in our society, most people are eaten up with current interpretations of Christianity. That IS the starting point for most people in our society. Though you may well be correct that any understanding of religion, should, IDEALLY, begin with trying to understand it's pre-historical and historical origins, we don't live in such the ideal culture in which that would commonly occur. The reality is that what happens for most people is that they are born into a family that, to some degree, holds a certain mythological orientation and that is what the child is predominately exposed to. I wasn't being completely serious with my "Let's make a deal" idea. Although it is a thought. Another thought: we could teach creationism in school but only as a component of a larger course re: the history of religious mythology.
Let's make a deal. Wherever creationism is taught in schools, they must also show this video and test the students on it subsequently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ZLuRYp8gk...Meaning of words change for political and religious reasons. And this can be caused by movements that sort of hypnotize the thinking of certain groups of people. I think “Creation" was one of those words. And these acts of changes of understandings are always linked to a movement of some kind. Example, “Global Warming" was understood by the people, but not getting the results the political movement wanted. The political movement changed the name to “Climate Change". Which is having its meaning changed over and over again in very little ways, but they add up. It was the change in climate caused by manmade acts at first, and understood that way by the postings on CFI. But have you read any of the latest science stories in the news about how the extinction of species in the past may have been brought about by “Climate Change". Go figure, after a year the scientists themselves don’t even understand the meaning. I tried bring this issue of “Climate Change" being an unscientific title up to the CFI forum and got blasted by the movement. My take on the terms “Global Warming" and “Climate Change" is as follows. "Climate Change" was not a term that was developed by a "movement" of people who wanted to advance their cause by using it in replacement of the term "Global Warming". This however, I think is a common misconception that I (and I hope others) will confront each time that it comes up. “Global Warming" refers to the general increase in the temperature of Earth. "Climate Change" refers to what happens when there is a consistent, persisting change in the general temperature of the Earth. People who know what's going on, don't use the term "Climate Change" as a replacement for the term "Global Warming". Both "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" exist. Of course, there IS a "movement" of people who want other people to recognize this reality. And there IS a "movement" of people who want to obfuscate this reality. One way, to obfuscate, is to support the myth that "Climate Change" is a term meant to replace the term "Global Warming".
... ... Thomas Jefferson was able to see what Mike Mal saw without having the same trouble as Mike. Jefferson’s idea was to cut all the twisted history out of the bible and only use the bible’s logical based teachings. Jefferson wanted this country’s religion to be based upon logic and past history. Jefferson was older at the time and only worked on the NT...Hey, I saw a documentary about how Jefferson's work on the New Testament, (i.e., his painstakingly clipping out what he thought were rational moralistic teachings, devoid of the supernatural trappings, and pasting them into one book) was rediscovered and was very carefully restored.
I got to agree with Lois, the NT is very anti-woman. That’s because Paul was. Some of Paul’s following cults would castrate themselves or cut their penis off. Stories about the OT state that Adam’s first wife Lilith left Adam because Adam would not let her have sex and be on the top. God backed Adam and kill hundreds of her children for not going back to Adam. And why did gods have be born from virgins? Was sex that unclean? And why is virgins connected to religion anyway? And with Jesus, what the heck is god messing with a married woman for? And in the Christian religion the woman is considered not completely formed. All babies start as woman and then in the third or fifth week, I can’t remember some of the babies become men. When the church got full control in the Dark Ages, they burn an unbelievable number of women at the stake. In the book The Lost Gospel, they talk about Mary and Jesus setting up the Christian religion. It is interesting that one of the goals for the new religion was women's rights. When Paul use Mary's and Jesus's work for his religion, Paul left out the fact that Mary was the god in another religion and Jesus's position in the Jewish religion was only that of a high priest. Paul made Jesus the god and discredited Mary. Now that women today are become CEO's and doctors, how long will it be until they are smart enough to dump the Christian religion. In the Dark Ages, the women were the healers, they knew the herbs that could help the sick. I guess the church wanted to heal with prayer. Look how the church treats the nuns. They can work for and under the directions of the church, like the men. But the nuns are then hung out to dry with no retirement or benefits, unlike the men.It may have changed in recent years, but I can remember a time when nuns could not go anywhere alone, not even to visit a relative and they could not drive. They never had any money of their own beyond a bare "allowance", either. Priests always had much more freedom--and money and they could drive. It was all done to "protect" the nuns. Forcing them to wear the old fashioned long habits restricted them even more. Mothers Superior were often like prison wardens. Priests had nothing like that. They were men, after all and more intelligent and could be trusted to do the "right thing." Lois
“Global Warming" refers to the general increase in the temperature of Earth. "Climate Change" refers to what happens when there is a consistent, persisting change in the general temperature of the Earth.I don’t remember Gore ever using the term Climate Change. And the White House always used the term Global Warming, then it changed and all the reports on the same subject and departments changed to the term Climate Change. I can’t even remember the last time Global Warming was used in a major news story. You may be right in legal terms, but in the day to day usage Global Warming seems to have died out. And you got to admit. Global Warming is self-explanatory. And Climate Change, well why not use term “weather", because that is what weather means to most people.
“Global Warming" refers to the general increase in the temperature of Earth. "Climate Change" refers to what happens when there is a consistent, persisting change in the general temperature of the Earth.I don’t remember Gore ever using the term Climate Change. And the White House always used the term Global Warming, then it changed and all the reports on the same subject and departments changed to the term Climate Change. I can’t even remember the last time Global Warming was used in a major news story. You may be right in legal terms, but in the day to day usage Global Warming seems to have died out. And you got to admit. Global Warming is self-explanatory. And Climate Change, well why not use term “weather", because that is what weather means to most people. "Global warming" got a bad rap. Because the earth doesn't heat up everywhere at once, and too many people could not wrap their heads around "Global warming" when it was snowing, they had to come up with an alternative. "Climate change" is probably a better term because people can understand things they can see: tidal waves, floods and fires, and the results of droughts, all visible indications of global warming and climate change. People can't take the earth's temperature and subtle changes in temperature are not easily observed. Nevertheless, there are people who will not accept that global warming is caused by human activity. Most are afraid business may suffer as a result, so, it's best to simply deny it and claim it's all just a natural cycle that will straighten itself out given time. Lois
“Global Warming" refers to the general increase in the temperature of Earth. "Climate Change" refers to what happens when there is a consistent, persisting change in the general temperature of the Earth.I don’t remember Gore ever using the term Climate Change. And the White House always used the term Global Warming, then it changed and all the reports on the same subject and departments changed to the term Climate Change. I can’t even remember the last time Global Warming was used in a major news story. You may be right in legal terms, but in the day to day usage Global Warming seems to have died out. And you got to admit. Global Warming is self-explanatory. And Climate Change, well why not use term “weather", because that is what weather means to most people. Think about it. Climates (the typical weather phenomenon that occurs in localities or regions) change after, and as, there is a persisting global (the whole Earth) change in temperature. Note that there would also be changes in climates if there were global cooling. Global warming or cooling, either one, would eventually lead to climate changes. So global warming (the entire Earth on average becoming hotter) inevitably leads to climates in different regions and localities changing. It is not just every place on Earth becoming hotter. Some regions and localities might change, for example, to having more or less rain than they used to (i.e. one aspect of that locality's climate changing). A locality whose climate changes to having more rain might also have a decline in their average temperature, while the average temperature of the entire Earth would still be going up. Just because one hears the term "Climate Change" more often than the term "Global Warming" does not mean that global warming has gone away. If global warming stopped, then changes in climate would stop. And the term "weather" is not an adequate replacement for the word "climate" because the term "climate" refers to a typical recurring pattern of weather events for a given locality.
I feel that I fully understand what is going on. Climates (the typical weather phenomenon that occurs in localities or regions) change after, and as, there is a persisting global (the whole Earth) change in temperature. Building the datum point or line to work from has been the problem with this science. And we are getting there, it will take a few more years. A few of the very basic questions that seem to keep getting swept under the rug are; “where is the earth in the Milankovitch’s cycle?" Are we on the way to the top, at the top, over the top of the cycle? None of the scientists can agree or seem to have any data available to answer such a basic question. Seems like a lot of guess work going on and in the last fifteen years. There has been a lot of wrong guesses.
Let me tell you a personal story. When I was young the interstates were not yet built. The oil companies knew the interstates were going to be built and started closing all the ma and pa gas stations in the country and replacing them with kit built modern gas stations like we have today. In Southern California Fritz A. Nashant built 90% of the kit stations for all the different oil companies. I was playing in Nashant’s warehouse and in the mezzanine I found an ocean divers outfit. I ask Fritz about the divers’ suit. He told me that he used the suit to fiberglass the inside of gas tanks. But stopped because once fiber glassed the tanks never leaked or needed replaced. He said tanks were replaced every seven years because of holes. Thirty years later the federal government spent billions and the clean-up of leaked gasoline is still going on today. It has cost billions and billions to deal with the contamination. Tanks today are fiber glassed lined on the inside. One has got to ask how the government could let the problem be created in the first place. If Fritz could tell me the solution before the problem was created, the government had to have known.
Now the problem Global Warming is talking about is man putting carbon in the air. Coal burning plants are the main problem. Coal is used to make steam. Steam is used to produce electricity. The biggest steam generator known is the earth. Drill anywhere and you will get heat. Not just tea kettle heat, but nuclear plant type of heat and pressure. Much better steam than any coal plant can produce.
What is going on? Why are they sitting on this energy source? Iceland is about the only county that is moving forward with geothermal energy. It’s like the railroads and passengers. The railroads thought they were in the railroad business and did not realize they were in the people moving business and lost out to cars and airlines. The railroads should have built the airlines, they had every resource needed except the understanding of their job.
Donald Trump might be the only candidate that is not hog tied by special interest and could solve the energy crisis and really help Global Warming by developing the geothermal resources. Otherwise we are going to have a replay of the gas tank storage problem. All of us are paying for that problem every time we buy gas. And the taxing has already started on the Global Warming. Taxing to fix the problem is Clinton’s solution. Taxing creates a lower standard of living for the working class.
Well, Mike, at least you seem to be recognizing that anthropogenic global warming exists and you are moving on to thinking about how to rectify it. That is more than those, powerful forces who don’t even want us to consider addressing the issue.