She blinded me with science Comments - Brought to you by JoeUser

Zoologist03 on On why I Believe my Missing Socks are in Heaven

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

~Zoo

zorven on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

zorven — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Maybe I missed it, but who is going to pay for the 30% discount?

Just looking at rough numbers, the U.S. uses about 146 billion gallons of gas per year (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question417.htm) which works out to about 28 gallons per week per household. So assuming more than one driver per household, everyone is already using less than 25 gallons per week and so everyone would get the 30% discount (I know this isn't the case, I am just going for the extreme example). For calculations sake, lets assume gas sells for $3 per gallon. A 30% discount would be $1 per gallon, so the annual cost of this program (before we add in all the bureaucracy) is $146 billion per year.

Gideon MacLeish on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

Gideon MacLeish — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Shame them into changing the law.

Do you know why the minimum markup law was put in place in Wisconsin in the first place? Wal-Mart. Because politicians were "shamed" into forcing retailers to apply a minimum markup because of alleged unfair business practices. So the wheel goes round and round.

I agree, your heart's in the right place, but your article on nuclear energy hits closer to the mark. We are where we are because we haven't evolved better technologies in a century and a half of the internal combustion engine's existence.

Benmeister on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

Benmeister — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Gas cards wouldn't be practical
Why?

Too big of scale. You'd have corruption, incompetence, a huge bureaucracy, a black market for cards...

Tax rebates for people who drive fuel efficient vehicles might be better.
Just because you drive a fuel efficient car doesn't mean you don't burn 200+
gals a week on other recreational vehicles. I think the only fair way is to tie
it to usage.

That would be the most fair way but also the most difficult to implement and enforce.

CharlesCS on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

CharlesCS — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

No I mean a 100 gals a week to pay exactly what your paying now.

OK, now you have me confused. First you say 25 gals a week, now you say 100. That's a lot of gas for an idea aimed at conserving.

Well I didn't add that up but it doesn't seem to me that 1200 miles a week for the two of you, that's assuming that your vehicles only get 12mpg, is not going to be enough but like I said exceptions can be made to keep necessary usage from costing you anymore. If you can't keep under 25 you can't do it, nothing changes for you, you pay the same as your paying now.

So then it's pointless. This idea should not be based on only those who can do it 25 and under. It should be aimed to work for everyone.

Yes people using more than 50 gals a week.

And that would not be fair for people who have no choice. Not everyone is lucky enough to work with a few minutes from their homes. Not to mention that highway traffic cost a lot of todays consumption. No point in having 75 Miles to the gallon cars when you spend 1 gallon in 3 miles of traffic. And accidents on the road? Forget it.

It's not a limit, you can buy as much gas as you want, but if you can use less you pay less.

It is because in order for it to work, in order for people to save and to consume less, you are forced to limit yourself. Unless you wanna be known as the guy/girl who refuses to consume and then they may actually blamed you for over consuming when they are trying to save.

KarmaGirl on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

KarmaGirl — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I think that people have the right to pay through the nose for gas, and we'll keep using it until there are better alternatives. A tax on a "lifestyle" vehicle (like a full ton truck or a gigantic SUV) would be a better deterent than a government limit (god, that scares the crap out of me) placed on anything.

CharlesCS on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

CharlesCS — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I really don't think this would cramp anyone's lifestyle. You have 100 gals a week minimum for a family that's unlikely slow anyone down too much even if you like to go RVng or boating on the weekends.

You mean a 100 gallons month:

You allow everyone to purchase say 25 gallons a week at say 30% off the market price.

I already spend between 24 and 36 a week just on work. My wife caches train to her job at 6:30 AM every morning to a station 10 minutes away and if we late I have to take her to work which is 20 minutes each way on the highway (only job she could find at the moment). I then have to drop off my younger son at Pre school which is 5 minutes away from my job but not along the way to work. Every day at 2:00 I have to drive to my older son's school to pick him up (a 15 minute drive each way) and drop him off at the boys and girls club about 3 minutes from my job. I then have to pick up both kids then go to the train station to pick up my wife which is about 10 minutes from my kids Pre School, then home, a 15 to 20 minute drive, depending on traffic at 5:45 PM. Once or twice a week I drive to my part time job which depending on the location that day could be anywhere from 15 to 25 minutes driving each way, all for $30 to $40 a night.

So you see, it would not be practical for my current lifestyle. I have not even added that my wife takes the car to work on Saturdays and then I might work on Saturday night as well. So supermarket trips, bank trips, going to the park, visiting family locally, all is extra gas expenses we have to watch every mile we drive. Hell, we haven't even gone to visit my wifes family in Miami, a 55 plus mile each way.

Practical? Not likely. If I was making enough money in my current job and my wife didn't need to work plus eliminate the part time. It would be a great idea, i would probably save a ton of money, but at the same time, I would have to wonder about those paying for my savings. because in the end the oil companies will not give up revenue, someone will have to pay for that 30% discount.

ParaTed2k on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

ParaTed2k — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I'm sure there would be some fraud, but it's $27 a week, how many people would be willing to risk a felony for maximum reward of $27 a week?

I've busted shoplifters with far less than $27 worth of stolen stuff. But back to the point...

You say $27 a week, but that's not what would be "saved" with a stolen card. If I had my own card and 3 stolen cards, I could fill both my gas guzzling vehicles a couple of times a week without getting stuck with the 30%, and especially the 30% over market price for over 50. That adds up to a whole lot more than $27. If I went up to 4 stolen cards, I could buy as much gas as I wanted and never hit that dreaded 25 gallons.

ParaTed2k on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

ParaTed2k — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

First you say this will help reduce gas consumption, then you say it wouldn't slow anyone's consumption down?

Benmeister on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

Benmeister — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Gas cards wouldn't be practical, but at least you're thinking.

Tax rebates for people who drive fuel efficient vehicles might be better.

CharlesCS on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

CharlesCS — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Wow, amazing how easily an idea that sounds good can be made to look almost pointless. Sounds like a great idea Stubby, the one thing that bugs me is this whole making others pay more just because they have more thing. I believe in equality and someone should not have to pay more just because they have more. If they spend more than sure, but this would put a damper on relieving stress when people look to going out to relax but instead find themselves unable to due to either having exceeded their limit and can't afford it, being close to exceeding and fearing not being able to afford it or fearing exceeding at all. I think anything that puts limits to living a free life is a bad idea to me. I still think education and alternative sources are a better solution. Maybe drilling our own oil and/or making alternative fuels such as electric and water based engines more affordable would be more reasonable.

ParaTed2k on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

ParaTed2k — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

So what happens to the person who doesn't have $27 for that 26th gallon? What security measures could be taken to prevent stolen cards from being used (I hope you realize there would be a huge underground industry for stolen cards)? How would you get distributors to go along with supplying gas to stations that don't have to pay until it's sold?

ParaTed2k on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

ParaTed2k — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Your heads in the right place, but I see a few problems here.

First of all, we don't buy gas directly from the oil companies, we buy it from gas stations. Most gas stations only make a cents a gallon profit, so what you are proposing here will make it so it actually costs money to sell gas.

The next problem would probably only apply here in Wisconsin. We have a rediculous law for gasoline called "Minimum mark up". In other words, it is illegal to sell gasonline here for less than the "minimum mark up" price. Your idea would be illegal here.

A third problem would be the "back charge". Do you realize that 26th gallon would cost $27 and change?

Gideon MacLeish on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

Gideon MacLeish — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I doubt I would ever top the amount, stubby, but my example is rooted in reality. Take a 5 day work week, for instance, and put one contract job that requires 60 miles each way and you're over limit.

The problem, as with so many ideas that were good in theory, is how do you prevent the exemptions from becoming loopholes for the wealthy to exploit?

Gideon MacLeish on An Idea to Help Reduce Gas Consumption.

Gideon MacLeish — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Tax on the wealthy? Hardly! What am I supposed to do when I have to turn down a work contract because I've used my gas allotment for the week? Because these work orders usually range from $75-200, turning down 2 or 3 WO's a week could have a substantial impact.

My job often requires me to drive 60 miles for some of these tickets.

This solution, as with many others, would hit the working class the hardest. Do you think Paris Hilton really CARES what she pays at the pump?

Dr Guy on Some Nuclear Facts

Dr Guy — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

It's the China Syndrome Dude. They should burn all copies of that movie.

Along with the leading actress.

But I will disagree with the contention that it would have made us energy independent. Less polluted, sure. But Nuclear will be replacing mostly coal (a big polluter), not oil.

Adventure-Dude on Some Nuclear Facts

Adventure-Dude — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

We have had nuclear subs and reactors in the US for a significant amount of time now. I don't understand why nuclear still gets the red light.

lulapilgrim on What is Faith

lulapilgrim — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Stubbyfinger writes:

I have never understood faith. People tell me it’s faith to believe that anything is going to happen that has chance of not happening. This is not true, and it confuses faith with trust. Faith is the belief in something despite the evidence. Trust is the belief in something because of the evidence. The level of trust I have that a given action will result in a predictable consequence is directly related to the percentage of times that consequence occurs. I have the maximum trust in that when I hit the letter G that letter will appear on my screen because it has always done so. My level of trust can go down to zero from there.

Stubbyfinger,

Very interesting article...and comments too.

I hope you don't mind my jumping in late...as I've been out of the loop so to speak due to computer problems.

You begin by saying you've never understood faith yet you certainly have definite ideas about it. Your definition of faith is straight forward even though there is quite a distinction to be made if one is talking (supernatural)virtue of faith and or simple faith or trust such as your example of pressing the "G" key and having the "G" appear on the screen as a result.

So, what's the difference between supernatural faith and simple ordinary faith? Well, having ordinary faith in things has its limitations. Using your example with the letter "G", it fails; one won't get the results if the computer is broken or turned off, or messed up in any way. Whereas divine or supernatural faith can never disappoint, or fail, or deceive.

The Catholic Church teaches that the supernatural virtue of faith is a gift of God which enables us to believe without doubting whatever God has revealed. Faith is an act of the intellect based on rational motives of credibility that will stand any test. This faith which is the beginning of man's salvation whereby with the help of GOd's grace, we believe what He reveals not becasue we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of our reason, but on account of the authroity of God who can neither deceive or be deceived.

Nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist.

There are thousands of stories of people performing miracles throughout history. ....So in light of all this is it more likely that Jesus was the only one of these that was the son of a god, or that none of them were? How you answer that is up to you but if you consider the odds it’s almost as likely the letter P is going to pop up on the screen when I hit the letter G.

Yes, I believe it upon Faith. Faith in Christ whom they believed to be what He claimed to be, "The Truth". I believe Christ to have what He claimed to have, all the power there is in Heaven and on earth. While Catholics accept belief as a matter of faith, it is faith that is in harmony with reason. The Catholic mind which is highly rational places no limits on the power of God who is Infinite in His power to do anything including appearing in the flesh as did Jesus Christ. Hence, upon faith, the supernatural invisible chain that binds us to God, it is reasonable to accept Christ at His word.

The nature of this faith can be considered this way.

The first Christians, the Apostles go into the world to preach what they have seen, heard, and touched in the person of Christ. They do not KNOW that Christ is God, thus they have the choice of belief or unbelief. They believe; others do not. Seeing a man work miracles like bringing Lazurus from the dead does not automatically produce faith. We have to choose. So begins the final stage of the drama of salvation. In turn the Apostles present what God has revealed in the words of a man called Christ, and men either accept or reject it. If they believe they must accept the whole message, becasue there is no argument with messengers sent by God. In this exercise of their freedom, men are choosing their eternal destinies.

If I were to have faith in god I would have to be capable of deluding myself completely and ignoring what logic and the odds tell me and the fact that religion would exist regardless, I have no idea how to do that. I would probably be happier if I could but I can’t. I really don’t want to burn in hell forever so to any of you whom has a personal relationship with god or his son please have him come over and explain things, maybe even a quick tour of heaven, because anything short of that and I’m scewed.

How does one acquire supernatural faith? By first understanding that supernatural faith includes the following principles:

God is our First Beginning and our Last End.
God has supreme dominion over us.
We owe God due service, which we express in religion.
True religion is the true worship of the one true God.
God has told us how He wants to be worshipped.
Man must obey this teaching of God.
Man has no right to practice a religion of his own making against God's will.
God alone can declare to us in what religion consists.
This declaration of God contains the body of revealed truths. The truths which God revealed are found in Sacred Scripture and in Sacred Tradition.
To acquire supernatural faith, we are bound to believe them.

The differences between humans and the four top primates is very small. .......So I trust that evolution is how the species on this planet including humans developed because that’s what the evidence tells me. I don’t have faith in it and it’s not a religion.

Religion and science call for belief by both faith and study. Faith proceeds all study. God's revealed religion begins with divine faith that will not deceive, in fact cannot deceive. whereas science, thus macro-Evolution, begins with human faith that is fallible.

It's utterly impossible to study chemistry, grammar, history, or any scientific subject as well as religion without accepting first principles upon faith, without faith in teachers.

With all due respect, your misunderstand what Faith/trust really is and its basic role in the sphere of science as well as religion. Fiath is not emotional, blind submission to the unknowable. Rather, it's an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen with the physical eye, the acceptance of a truth upon the authority of some one else. In religion, it's Divine Authority, "taking God at His word." In science, certainly in the case of believing in Evolution Theory, it's faith upon human authority, that may or may not be right.

When faith of science is accepted and not faith of true religion, it is wise to recall the divinely inspired declaration of St. John, "If we accept the testimony of man, the testimony of God is greater."

little-whip on What is Faith

little-whip — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Jesus loves everyone. He died for the sinners LW. It's ironic that you highlighted ME in your last sentence because that's what this is all about isn't it?

Absolutely, KFC. Let's make sure *I* have this right. You're annoyed because So Daiho doesn't manage his blog the way *you* want him to (ie: blacklisting people that are being discussed in a disparaging way, as you've done with your own) so when I make a small, two-line comment about bias on your thread, it outrages *you* to the point where you blacklist me yet continue to talk about *me* for over a week there?

this is just an excuse for vengeance.

Vengeance: infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person.

Do you think you have harmed me in some way, little pharisee? Do you confess now that your actions were unfair, petty, and mean-spirited? Talking about someone who cannot respond is akin to gossip...in fact, it's worse than gossip because gossip is done out of earshot, behind the back, and the person being discussed may never be exposed to it.

Yet for a week or more you've had nothing but insults for me, all the while proclaiming your own innocence, swearing that you've never, EVER attacked ANYONE on these forums, EVER. Go back and read the things you've said about me there, KFC, and then look in the mirror and see a liar. (Or someone suffering from some serious delusions.)

You're pissed because the entire thread became about *me*? Read it again and pay close attention as to why that came about. I left a single, short comment, it was your response to it, and your continued posts about *ME* that made it about me, not MY comment, which you could have simply ignored.

To make it simple for you, KFC, it's your fault that the thread took the turn that it did, not mine.

But I've not been harmed in any way so I don't need 'vengeance.' I am annoyed, yes. But not harmed. I think you may have suffered a bit of damage, however, because your ranting over there tends to make one think you are obsessed with me, as well as possessed of a persecution complex that makes you place far more importance on yourself than is warranted by our casual bickering. Narcissist!

I, on the other hand, do not subscribe to the weak, pansy-assed turn-the-other-cheek crap that you falsely claim to embrace. (hypocrite, wwjd?) So I make you the same reasonable offer I've made others in this situation--keep my name out of your mouth while I am on your blacklist and we'll get along just fine.

You can leave me there forever and ever and I'll have no problem with it whatsoever, you're barely worth talking to anyway because I've never seen anyone so biased, bigoted, and closed-minded in my life...no great loss there.

But carrying on and on about it, mentioning me in almost every response there while blaming ME about the direction the thread has taken is just insane, and if I have to start my own thread about it, I will. If that's 'vengeance' in your mind then you are sicker than I thought.

KFC Kickin For Christ on What is Faith

KFC Kickin For Christ — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

That's cool too, but I don't think you'll like it very much.

this is just an excuse for vengeance. Since when do you need an excuse?

I haven't bashed you at all. Most of the talk on Bias was to Ock accusing him of jumping on your bandwagon without checking his facts. It really had not much to do with you at all other than you started the ball rolling yet once again as you're doing here. It's all about taking the focus off the topic and onto you isn't it?

My problem is that no matter which thread I visit you show up, cause a diversion (as you're doing here) to get us off topic. You did it on Sodaiho's and that was the last straw for me. I liken it to a temper tantrum you wanting to be noticed. I've noticed this over and over again.

I have nothing to prove unless it's just that I want you to stop which I've asked repeatedly of you and you won't. So I had no choice but to blacklist you mostly because I can't find a delete key anymore. You know as well as I that this is the first time I've every done this in the two years plus you and I have had "words" and I admit it was frustration that caused me to blacklist you because I didn't see any alternative.

Jesus loves everyone. He died for the sinners LW. It's ironic that you highlighted ME in your last sentence because that's what this is all about isn't it?

little-whip on What is Faith

little-whip — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

stubby, indulge me a moment while i step off topic?

KFC, I'm moderately annoyed at you blacklisting me while continuing to talk trash about me on your 'bias' thread. You claim you've NEVER, EVER attacked anyone on JU, yet every other comment you've made there is bashing me. I left a two line remark that you're still taking issue with a week later, (that remark consisting of the fact that I found your post title ironic since you are the most biased individual i've ever encountered on these forums.)

My suggestion for alternative topics was made sarcastically, btw. I do *not* endeavor to tell you what to do or what to write about, but you have hijacked many threads on these forums, (threads originally dealing with other subjects entirely) in order to re-introduce (and re-introduce, ad nauseum) the evolution argument.

You seem to have something to 'prove.' That's fine with me. Write about whatever excites your Jesus organ, it's your blog and you're entitled to it.

Continue to slam me where I cannot respond, however, and you leave me no choice but to respond in the only way I can, on my own blog...where of course others will pile on, feeding your persecution/martyr complex.

That's cool too, but I don't think you'll like it very much.

Have a blessed evening, and remember this, it was people like ME that your Jesus liked best.

KFC Kickin For Christ on What is Faith

KFC Kickin For Christ — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Where the Bible is concerned I'll yield to your expertise. Do you think there is anyone alive now who would be capable of that level of faith?

Good question. Abraham was certainly known for his great faith. But I do think when you read the Hall of Fame in Hebrews 11 you see many with true Faith. How to measure it from person to person? Not sure. Job said that even if God slay him, he would still trust him. That's remarkable faith as well. THe Lord gives and the Lord takes away.

But I do believe when I read story after story of the martyrs throughout history we see great faith. Many risked their lives for others having faith not in the material world but in the eternal believing the promises of God. Thomas, the doubter wouldn't believe UNTIL he saw with his own eyes and Jssus said to him "More blessed are those who believe and don't see."

Walking by faith and not by sight is not as hard as you think when you have a relationship with someone you have complete trust in.

Zoologist03 on What is Faith

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Yes it has a common derivative to trust but there meanings have significantly diverged.

Holy shit they evolved! *dramatic music*

~Zoo

KFC Kickin For Christ on What is Faith

KFC Kickin For Christ — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

That’s just it though; Abraham had every reason to believe that his son was going to die by his own hand. God never told him it was going to be all right

But he did. Abraham knew that God had promised him that thru this son his descendants would be like the sands of the sea or the stars in the sky. Go back and read the full account. What we think (and can only assume) is that Abraham must have thought his son would be resurrected by God in order to make this happen. God had told him he would have a son, and it came to pass. God showed him all along the way he was with him so Abraham had faith in God because he had a relationship with God and knew his word was true.

You can have faith without proof or even despite the proof

This is true but it's based on past experiences that have proven themselves out by the one who we have faith in.

You may trust me because I've proven myself trustworthy to you. Then later when I tell you something is going to happen even without giving you the proof you have faith that it will come to pass based on the past. You have faith in me even tho I've given you no proof I'm going to do what I say. All you can go on is past experiences.

Hebrews 11 is known as the "Faith" Chapter in the bible. It is the Hall of Fame of Faith, The chapter starts out with a definition of Faith. It says:

"Now Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Faith is described in this verse as the substance (assurance or reality) of things hoped for and the evidence (proof) of things not seen. Faith gives reality and proof of things unseen; treating them as if they were already objects of sight rather than hope.

That's why many speak of seeing by Faith and not by sight.

CharlesCS on Live Writer Test Post

CharlesCS — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I don't see a plane, but I do see a jet. LOL

KFC Kickin For Christ on What is Faith

KFC Kickin For Christ — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I find most everyone uses the words faith, belief and trust as if they all mean exactly the same thing when there are significant philosophical differences between them.

Yes, I think you're right but don't you think they are closely related? Abraham had faith in God even enough to slay his son, if needed. But God had already proven himself to Abraham. Abraham had this son when it was way past a miracle to do so.

Having Faith is having unquestioning belief and to be faithful means to be loyal to the one you have faith in.

To be trustful is to believe the honesty or reliability of another. To trust is to believe in and have trust in.

I have faith in God because, like Abraham, he's already proven himself to me. I know what he has told us is true because of past experiences in my life have proven this to be true.

So I now have faith that the future will unfold exactly as he has told us it will in his word even tho I'm not exactly sure every detail of how this will all pan out.

Abraham knew that in the end it would be ok even tho what he was being told to do didn't make much sense to him. He had faith and was loyal to the one he put his trust in.

Zoologist03 on Live Writer Test Post

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I see it now.

~Zoo

Po' Smedley on Live Writer Test Post

Po' Smedley — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I see the red bull plane

ditto

w4xpl4y3r on Live Writer Test Post

w4xpl4y3r — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I see the red bull plane

Zoologist03 on Live Writer Test Post

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Hmm, I don't see one.

I think there's an issue with the URL...I can't get it to show up here either.

~Zoo

Zoologist03 on What is Faith

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

hmmmmmm and here I was thinking it was all about a designer.....

I said creation could've occured at the very onset of life. But bit by bit(microbe by microbe) things became more complex. Perhaps I should clarify more. The erosion in my example would illustrate random chaos becoming a recognizable, complex form. The human represents a more ordered process...natural selection. However, it's difficult to draw appropriate analogies with inanimate objects because living things cannot really be compared to things that are not alive.

Creation would dictate that the entire mountain was revamped with four faces in the blink of an eye.

~Zoo

Sodaiho on What is Faith

Sodaiho — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

"FIDES" is often (and wrongly) translated 'faith', but it has nothing to do with the word as used by Christians writing in Latin about the Christian virute (St. Paul Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 13). For the Romans, FIDES was an essential element in the character of a man of public affairs, and a necessary constituent element of all social and political transactions (perhaps = 'good faith'). FIDES meant 'reliablilty', a sense of trust between two parties if a relationship between them was to exist. FIDES was always reciprocal and mutual, and implied both privileges and responsibilities on both sides. In both public and private life the violation of FIDES was considered a serious matter, with both legal and religious consequences. FIDES, in fact, was one of the first of the 'virtues' to be considered an actual divinity at Rome. The Romans had a saying, "Punica fides" (the reliability of a Carthaginian) which for them represented the highest degree of treachery: the word of a Carthaginian (like Hannibal) was not to be trusted, nor could a Carthaginian be relied on to maintain his political elationships”. Good Faith is the correct translation of Fides and “good faith” has a much different meaning than the word “faith” alone.

I did not translate it as such, but pointed out with the Oxford English Dictionary, its derivation. One wonders what your stumbling block is. Perhaps an exploration of the relationships between faith, belief, and trust might be helpful. I thought I was pointing you in that direction with my example.

Be well.

KFC Kickin For Christ on What is Faith

KFC Kickin For Christ — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Using your Mt. Rushmore example. Erosion didn't create it, but a human did. That human made it bit, by bit...not all at once. That's kind of like evolution. Small changes occcur in something(in this case a mountain) and eventually it becomes something new(a sculpture).

hmmmmmm and here I was thinking it was all about a designer.....

You can have FAITH in anything. I have FAITH that my husband will get up every morning at 6 am to read before he goes to work. I have FAITH that my sons will call me sometime during the week. I don't know for sure, but I have faith that they will.

In church today I taught the ladies an acronym for FAITH. Perhaps you've heard it? From a Christian POV of course we have faith in God. So we say.....

F-orsaking

A-ll

T-rust

H-im

Zoologist03 on What is Faith

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

When you say "evolution is how the species on this planet including humans developed because that’s what the evidence tells me." that just doesn't make sense. I'm no scientist, but looking at the utter complexity of the human anatomy, how can you say that it "evolved" from basically nothing? Here's an example; if I told you that mount rushmore wasn't actually carved out of that rock, but that millions and millions of years of wind and water erosion made those faces appear, you'd probablly think I was loony. How then is it different to say that millions and millions of years can make even the simplest of organisms from nothing?

Well, it's easier to say magic, isn't it? Why does lightining strike? Positive and negative ions...nah...God obviously. Why does a volcano erupt? Pressure from magma under the earth finally being released...or maybe God was just angry, yeah that's it. How are babies born? God put it there of course, no way could sperm and egg come together and form a zygote without any outside interference from God.

Do you see how that mindset goes? "I don't understand it, God did it." You look at the evidence and it doesn't make sense to you...God obviously did it. God=magic when you look at the world...science seeks to figure out what really happens aside from whatever preconceived ideas the rest of the world has.

Evolution is really easy to get if you take the time...in fact, browse the forums for some articles and more than likely you'll see my comments in there going into great detail about the entire process.

Using your Mt. Rushmore example. Erosion didn't create it, but a human did. That human made it bit, by bit...not all at once. That's kind of like evolution. Small changes occcur in something(in this case a mountain) and eventually it becomes something new(a sculpture).

Anywho, that's as far as I'm going. I don't want stubby to drown in another one of these debates.

~Zoo

tYgonIs on What is Faith

tYgonIs — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Sodaiho on What is Faith

Sodaiho — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Faith, in the religious sense, is a belief in a set of principles, perhaps, a doctrine, or set of practices. Its roots (from OED), both Anglo-Saxon and French, are derived from the Latin, fides, which suggests trust.

We trust the toaster will toast if we know about toasters, but if we do not know about toasters, have no evidence they will toast, but are told by a trusted source that they will do so, then if we believe they will toast, we are said to have faith in toasters.

I hope this helps.

Be well.

little-whip on What is Faith

little-whip — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I don’t understand gravity but I put a great deal of trust in that I’m not going to shoot off into space anytime soon.

There's no such thing as gravity. The earth just sucks. Really hard.

Zoologist03 on What is Faith

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Faith (or belief) is a tool for achieving results, not the end result itself. That's what I think, and its worked for me.

Makes sense. It can help you get from one place to another...yeah, I can see that.

~Zoo

little-whip on What is Faith

little-whip — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

If you don't understand how a microwave works, you still have 'faith' that if you put a cuppa joe in there for a minute or two... its gonna get hot.

You don't have to understand or be able to scientifically explain how something works to make it work *for* you.

Faith (or belief) is a tool for achieving results, not the end result itself. That's what I think, and its worked for me.

Zoologist03 on What is Faith

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Why can't I change the font of that last paragraph?

Because the internet is not your friend.

Hmm, did you highlight and try to mess with it? Like so? Wingdings!

~Zoo

Zoologist03 on What is Faith

Zoologist03 — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

You sound like you have a statistical mindset. Everything has a probability from 0, it's not going to happen, to 1, it's definitely going to happen.

Faith is interesting...though I have only a little. It just seems that things either happen or they don't and there's not much you can do to change it unless do something that directly affects the situation. Having faith is believing...and believing has no real effect on the world outside of your mind, only action.

Of course, the main purpose of faith is to feel better. That's what it's used for...this will be okay because I have faith, this guy will be punished because I have faith, I'm going to heaven because I have faith. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just a way to deal with things that you normally have no control over.

~Zoo

Dr Guy on Mother Nature Showing off

Dr Guy — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Sometimes I wonder what man did to deserve Dogs - and Dolpins.

Glad you got the opportunity! maybe one day I will make it down there. With most of my family (read Mother and sisters) down near there, I guess I owe them a visit.

MasonM on Mother Nature Showing off

MasonM — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Long key state park.

It's a nice campground, the only downside is where the campsites are on the island you can piratically through a rock from one side to the other, and overseas hwy runs right down the middle so there is some traffic noise.

It's really not that noticeable and there's very little traffic at night.

OK, I know where it is but have never camped there.

I'm sure the offshore storms were awesome.

MasonM on Mother Nature Showing off

MasonM — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Sounds great. If I could afford it I'd live in the Keys, I love it down there. Which campground did you stay in?

Dr Guy on Good Fishing

Dr Guy — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

We dont have those kinds of garage disposals here.

I love fishing as well!

Dr Guy on Future Economies

Dr Guy — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

The future is already here. That is why the industrial unions have shrunk so much. Most of their jobs have not so much disappeared as gone to developing nations. And our unemployment has not grown. We have transformed from an agrarian society, to an industrial one, to a service one, and we will continue to change as technology allows us to.

We can become a society of Terminator (I dont beleive we will) or of Star Trek. The former is when the machines do everything (a better example is probably Dune - pre story), or the latter when People are used for their brain power and the ability for Intelligence. Something that has yet to be duplicated by machines. I think the latter is our future.

cactoblasta on Future Economies

cactoblasta — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I have no doubt many will always prefer humans over machines for some services but many others will prefer machines. Haven’t you ever been sure your auto mechanic was ripping you off? Wouldn’t you chose to take your car to a machine mechanic that’s 5 times as fast and cost a fifth as much? Lets face it humans can be dishonest scoundrels and many will prefer the simple selfless strait forward logic of machines for services.

I'd probably still go to my mechanic. I like him, we get on well, and he's never tried to cheat me. Add to that the bonus that he given damn good advice on lots of different car things in the past and I probably would still go to him rather than paying a fifth as much to get a service I can never wholly trust. A combined service would be much better.

That’s what human workers will become, sheik and overpriced.

Do you mean 'chic'? In any case that may be true, but I don't think the machines will take over for a few generations yet. I'd say most people still find the idea of a robot barber or a robot bartender a little creepy and impersonal.

Shovelheat on Future Economies

Shovelheat — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

I always thought that robot saloon girls were a cool idea.

WWW Link

cactoblasta on Future Economies

cactoblasta — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Accountants, they make to many mistakes and even less of us are going to need accountants. Hairdressers, really, imagine a franchise like super cuts that you just walk in sit down drop in a storage thingy and it gives you the exact same perfect haircut every time. Message therapist; how about one that uses thermal analysis to detect problems, and never under or over works a muscle and doesn’t charge extra to talk dirty to you.

I'd much rather have a real person do all those jobs. Humans are creative, machines are not (or at least aren't yet). A creative accountant will save you money, a creative hairdresser will give you better suggestions and a creative massage therapist will do a better job than a machine which'll just pound away at knots. Also you can flirt/gossip with the last two (depending on how you swing) and ordinary people don't do that with machines.

Human contact is really very popular amongst the general population. I really don't think it's going to be replaced by impersonal machines. And with lots of economies switching to service economies there's no reason to assume we'll have rampant unemployment either. We'll just have more esoteric professions.

Gideon MacLeish on Future Economies

Gideon MacLeish — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:20:42 -0400

Oh, yeah, because a leaky hydraulic cylinder is SO MUCH tastier! LOL!

I've worked with machines all of my life in the workforce, and usually they're ok. But when they malfunction and cannot sense they're malfunctioning, there's a problem.

Personally I don't eat at McD's because I don't like hamburger after it's been frozen. But when other restaurants start following the trend, I guess I won't be eating hamburgers at all.