Jump to content
Science Forums

cwes99_03

Members
  • Content Count

    1,577
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

cwes99_03 last won the day on December 27 2006

cwes99_03 had the most liked content!

About cwes99_03

  • Rank
    Suspended

Converted

  • Location
    Central Illinois
  • Interests
    Studying the Bible, physics, making models
  • Occupation
    computer specialist
  1. Unnecessary. Group membership does not equal membership in the group of people who find no difference between philosophy and religion. Nor does the opposite apply (that being not finding a difference between philosophy and religion meaning you are a heavy hitter.)
  2. Yah, definitely avoid that. Stupid teachers.
  3. linkback Steve, you might like to check your reference. Who's quote is that in your post? It certainly isn't me. I know I did a quick search for Crichton on the forum and didn't find any posts made by me with that name in them. Please use the quote and multiquote options if you don't know how to edit the tags to show who you are quoting.
  4. Be careful here. Building up their self esteem with false encouragement when they aren't really accomplishing anything is detrimental to the learning process. Actually teaching them something, and letting them achieve a high score on the test is the best reward. But you definitely don't want them to feel hopeless.
  5. Said more eloquently than I have been able to say to this point. I started the philosophy vs. religion thread on the same basis. I realized that too many people discussed personal/group philosophies as if they were a religion, but I sought a prescriptive definition. Unfortuneatly, I don't think many of the heavy hitters on this site want such a definition. They are happy with the state of religion and philosophy being confused.
  6. Yah, but then you are traveling away from the question at hand Q. Plus, look at how many of those "christians" and "jews" don't follow the commands and principles that are Chistian and Jewish. Calling yourself a Christian or a Jew does not a religious person make. Calling yourself a scientist does not make you a scientist if you likewise believe the scriptures are God's word, at least that is what many above seem to be saying.
  7. start a new thread, don't try to hijack this one.
  8. Ok, I perused the first as well, and this thought is similar to one I had on an earlier thread where I suggested that by melting and plowing snow from city streets and rooftops we are reducing the albedo of the earth. Now there is one major difference between reducing the albedo with blacktop and reducing the albedo with green plants. Blacktop absorbs and reradiates the absorbed sunlight in the form of heat. Tree leaves absorb sunlight and store the energy in the cells of the organism (for the most part) only reradiating as much heat as cannot be consumed by the biological processes of the
  9. You seem incapable of answering the question, Gary. Let's see, many philosophies are "codified beliefs and rituals", "practiced personally" or "practiced as a group", "focused on a system of thought or person", and "Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, traditions, and rituals are often traditionally associated with the core belief". Thus the difference between the religion and the philosophies you thoughtfully enumerated, is the presumed/assumed source of those codes, beliefs, values, and laws.
  10. Ok, here are my results from the "optical illusion" used in the opening post and discussed throughout the thread by me. I took 6 random samplings from the magnified center pieces of each of the crosses and then averaged them together. The averages for the cross on the left were R=101, G=97.8, and B=96.3. The right centerpiece was R=117, G=112, and B=110. Now it is fairly obvious to me that these two colors are different. However, this method took and changed the original picture (i took the original picture and enlarged it before taking my measurements.) Since there is such an obvious
  11. I don't deny that there are questions. I'm just wondering what questions this particular person has, and why he feels a need to abandon all previous description of time, for some new theory he wants to propose. Einstein didn't abandon Newton's description of the universe when he started, nor when he finished. He sought out ways to adjust or add to it. Thus if the originator of this thread would go about it in the same way (that is to seek knowledge and answers, rather than create them) he might have a better chance at truly making a breakthrough. Perhaps his questions have already been a
  12. Easily answered. Many who are religious are not blindly faithful to what others tell them is true. Thus they are constantly looking for explanations that are the most truthful (or at least they should be). This means testing out the scientific theories, continually searching things out. When scientific theories go against their beliefs, they reanalyze their beliefs and scientific thought and make adjustments if need be. However, sometimes adjustments cannot be made in your religious belief, so you have to make a decision based on faith in one or the other. Particularly christians are taug
  13. Ok, then why don't you focus on learning about the things you don't understand about time. What in particular don't you understand?
  14. Gary, there was some good in your thread, so I'll try to extract it. Now of the bolded parts, what makes that different than say Draconian philosophy, or Platonic philosophy?
  15. Rejected by whom, and for what reason, is the reason that this post continues on.
×
×
  • Create New...