# How did that happen?



## Dark Knight (Aug 22, 2011)

Since we are all engineers, and with an analytic mind, let us try this: Explain some extraordinary events from the Bible and from any other book, magazine, report, etc.

First I propose to explain how Moses did split the Red Sea so the people of Israel could escape from the Egyptians. What is the explanation for that? An earthquake? A tornado? How did that happen?


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 22, 2011)

Dark Knight said:


> Since we are all engineers, and with an analytic mind, let us try this: Explain some extraordinary events from the Bible and from any other book, magazine, report, etc.
> First I propose to explain how did Moses did split the Red Sea so the people of Israel could escape from the Egyptians. What the explanation for that? An earthquake? A tornado? How did that happen?


I heard a while back that someone had offered a calculation for hydrologic systems that allowed part of the red sea to be cleared of water at a certain time.

Here's the abstract: http://www.maik.ru/abstract/physatm/3/physatm4_3p482abs.htm

Now, the accuracy of this is up for debate, I haven't looked over the paper directly and quite frankly wouldn't trust my review as much as the original writer's anyway (Flow etc is one of my weakest areas in Civil). Still, my understanding is that it was fairly well-reviewed, and is fairly close to the literal retelling of the Bible.

How about The Flood?

Edit: You know, I'm not sure this is a great place to put this. Do we want to have it moved to a subsection, or do we want to just remove it from the board? I'm fine with discussing religion, but it's like politics - it devolves into screaming or "me vs. you" far too easily.


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 22, 2011)

Be my guest. Do not post here if that makes you feel better.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 22, 2011)

Dark Knight said:


> Be my guest. Do not post here if that makes you feel better.


Oh no, I have a fairly thick skin, and as a logical/thinking/not-always-literalist Christian I like to think my views on the subject can keep things interesting. I'm just thinking about the general site issues - we don't necessarily want a full thread of people wrangling and tearing throats out in plain view of the public. Let's save that for a subforum!

Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 23, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?


Yeah, he's got his own cartoon on PBS.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?
> ...


They made a cartoon about a rich but loveable drunk?


----------



## Fudgey (Aug 23, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> > Be my guest. Do not post here if that makes you feel better.
> ...


Wow, calling youself interesting isn't arrogant or presumptuous in any way. I find most of your posts are done simply with the intent of stirring the pot.


----------



## NCcarguy (Aug 23, 2011)

OR....maybe there is only ONE explaination????

I've seen enough stories from "Brilliant" scientists to know that every single time they come up with a reason scientifically where something happened, it's always in line with something that's stated in the bible. I just wonder why they feel the need to prove something that they already know can't be proven. It's kinda like the big bang theory. It's a theory, since NO ONE was there when it happened.


----------



## goodal (Aug 23, 2011)

Wow Major, that was a pretty impressive, degrading rant on a religion that is held to by a vast majority of people on this planet (including myself). That said, it doesn't offend or surprise me that some hold to those views. It does, however, help me understand you a little more.

About Biblical "miracles". I believe (YES, believe, not know, afirm or can prove) that alot of the biblical miracles can be attributed to natural physical phenonemon. God made all this stuff, so why not use it. Ex. the wormwood star mentioned in revelations could be a comet crashing to earth. Korah being swallowed by the earth could have been an earthquake, as well as the walls of Jericho falling. I don't think Him using His creation diminishes His Omnipotence because He still had to cause it to happen and happen the way He wanted. Now, I also believe that there are some miracles that can't be explained. They require faith. I also have no problem with stating this, because all other religions (evolution included) require a great amount of faith as well. The crossing of the Red Sea is probably one of them because, even if you could part the waters, there is no explainable way to dry the ground like the Bible says. Manna is probably another unexplainable one. We could try to calculate the amount of strength that it would have required for Samson to push over stone pillars, but that would probably yield an astronomical number. How about "how hard would David have to have thrown the stone for it to sink into the head of Goliath?" How much heat was required to maintain a pillar of fire to lead the hebrews around the desert for 40 years. Cool idea, just probably not answerable because they are miracles by nature.

PS. You and I have done the yelling/name calling thing before. Not trying to start that again. Just a reply. Thats all. Please notice I capitalized all the references to God in my post. Even if you do believe your post, I think you probably posted it to get a reaction. Well I guess it worked.


----------



## goodal (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> This ought to be good, badal is reading the thread...
> opcorn:



you know me well.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 23, 2011)

badal said:


> They require faith. I also have no problem with stating this, because all other religions (evolution included) require a great amount of faith as well.


This is where my problem with religion lies. Evolution is not a religion, it is a scientific theory. It does not require faith. It is a hypothesis that scientists are actively trying to prove or disprove based on research and testing. It is not a perfect theory, nor is it fact. The theory may be proven, dis-proven, or updated based on new research or testing at any time.

Religion, as you stated yourself, requires faith that things we know to be impossible (like walking on water or turning water to wine) were accomplished by human of holy descent.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Fudgey said:


> Wow, calling youself interesting isn't arrogant or presumptuous in any way. I find most of your posts are done simply with the intent of stirring the pot.


Some of them are. Some of them aren't. I like to play the "devil's advocate". Again, it keeps reasonable conversation going, which (as I said) I like to think makes things more interesting - not that I myself am more interesting, but that when people are challenged they tend to think more. I know I do.



Master slacker said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a less religious one: Arthur. Did he exist?
> ...


I meant KING Arthur. You know, sword in the stone, another sword capable of cutting other swords in half, etc?



Major Highway said:


> But, yeah, there are probably plenty of calculations out there to prove that it happened, just like there are "flood geology" papers and proofs that bronze age people could have lived a thousand years and dinosaur fossils labeled as being 4,000 years old in a museum at Liberty University... yes, those things exist, but they are entirely rejected by the scientific community.


No, not entirely. While the vast majority of what you cited are rejected - the bones and the bronze age age issue in particular - there are other "miracles" (like the walls of Jericho, for example) that can be explained scientifically. Scientists should approach the matter as they would any other issue, by not jumping to conclusions; they start with a hypothesis ("Is it possible to have a section of the Red Sea dry up?") and then prove or disprove it.

Of course, my viewpoint is "OK, it might have happened, or it might be a parable... it doesn't matter to me". And since I'm not trying to prove them or approach the matter scientifically - they are a matter of faith, not science - I assume accuracy until proven incorrect.


----------



## goodal (Aug 23, 2011)

wilheldp_PE said:


> badal said:
> 
> 
> > They require faith. I also have no problem with stating this, because all other religions (evolution included) require a great amount of faith as well.
> ...


It doesn't sound like theory to me when every single time a person on TV talks about the age of the earth they say something like, "Since the earth evolved 4 BILLION years ago bla bla bla" and they always emphasize billion to drive home the point. Not that I'm an expert or anything close to one but I could go on and on about this, but I'm not going to be held responsible for derailing this thread.

BTW, how much energy would it have required to form the universe via an explosion from material no larger than a dot the size of a period?


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> But see, why believe something extroadinary until it is proven not to be true, when in every other aspect of our lives we simply don't believe extraodinary claims until they are proven to be true. I think the reason is because you were told to believe it since you were first able to understand the spoken language. It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out. This is the same thing with religion, except, the adults still believe it and the spell never gets broken.


Why do I, personally, believe? It's not because of the way I was raised - well, maybe partially, but not entirely. I haven't spent my entire life a believer.

And on a side note, I never believed in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Well, not since I can remember (5-6) at least.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Aug 23, 2011)

wilheldp_PE said:


> badal said:
> 
> 
> > They require faith. I also have no problem with stating this, because all other religions (evolution included) require a great amount of faith as well.
> ...





Major Highway said:


> The theory of gravityThe germ theory of disease
> 
> These are two other theories that started out as hypotheses and have continued to be tested over time yet still hold to be about the best explanation that we have for the questions they seek to answer. The theory of evolution is the same thing. While there are gaps in the theory, it doesn't mean that it isn't just as true as the other two. It just means that we have not yet found the missing links.


lusone: :appl:


----------



## goodal (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> But see, why believe something extroadinary until it is proven not to be true, when in every other aspect of our lives we simply don't believe extraodinary claims until they are proven to be true. I think the reason is because you were told to believe it since you were first able to understand the spoken language. It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out. This is the same thing with religion, except, the adults still believe it and the spell never gets broken.



Major, youve used two things to prove your point that actually derail it completely, Santa Claus and Zeus. There is no one on earth saying either is real, any credible written evidence for either and, in fact, everyone knows they are complete fabrications. There is written evidence, with verifiable authenticity, for the God of the bible, there is physical proof for some events that are recorded in the Bible and untold millions have been slain for this God because of what he has done for them. Yes, both of us were blessed to have been born in a christian family. I pity and pray for those that were'nt, but that doesnt reduce my faith in or love for the God that caused the whale to swallow Jonah. Back on point, how much O2 would have had to be in the whales belly for a man to survive for 3 days?


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

badal said:


> It doesn't sound like theory to me when every single time a person on TV talks about the age of the earth they say something like, "Since the earth evolved 4 BILLION years ago bla bla bla" and they always emphasize billion to drive home the point. Not that I'm an expert or anything close to one but I could go on and on about this, but I'm not going to be held responsible for derailing this thread.
> BTW, how much energy would it have required to form the universe via an explosion from material no larger than a dot the size of a period?


The age of the earth is verifiable - roughly - through scientific means. The expansion of the universe is now "visible" to us; based on the rate of said expansion, the age of the universe itself is calculable. Those are not theories. They are as close to fact as it is possible to obtain.

Evolution - we've seen microevolution in play. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is harder to find - it doesn't happen every day. At this point, it is a theory, but it is the most likely correct answer for "How did humanity end up the way it did". Now, you can argue that Evolution is guided by the Hand of God instead of purely statistics and quasirandom chance - but by doing so, you are taking it from a debate about the scientific to a debate about the religious.

(I approve of the idea of I.D. being taught in public schools - as a one or two lines, basically what I said above, with the appended remark "and religion isn't something verifiable in a science class, so we're ignoring that for now.")


----------



## chaosiscash (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out.



WHAT??!!

:i_cry:


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 23, 2011)

chaosiscash said:


> Major Highway said:
> 
> 
> > It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out.
> ...


:lmao:


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 23, 2011)

chaosiscash said:


> Major Highway said:
> 
> 
> > It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out.
> ...


:lmao:


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

badal said:


> Major, youve used two things to prove your point that actually derail it completely, Santa Claus and Zeus. There is no one on earth saying either is real, any credible written evidence for either and, in fact, everyone knows they are complete fabrications. There is written evidence, with verifiable authenticity, for the God of the bible, there is physical proof for some events that are recorded in the Bible and untold millions have been slain for this God because of what he has done for them. Yes, both of us were blessed to have been born in a christian family. I pity and pray for those that were'nt, but that doesnt reduce my faith in or love for the God that caused the whale to swallow Jonah. Back on point, how much O2 would have had to be in the whales belly for a man to survive for 3 days?


Actually, some Wiccans still follow the old Greco-Roman gods; others follow the Norse pantheon, or the Celtic one. As for the original remark about Posieden crushing people - sounds like a tidal wave to me. And hey look, a tree blasted by lightning - surely Zeus did it!

I should point out that the story of the Red Sea isn't proven. As far as I know, no miraculous story from the Bible is "proven". Yes, there's evidence that something could have happened... but whether it was made up and just happens to fit theoretical possibilities, or if it actually happened exactly as written, is impossible to truly prove.

If someone were to write a book about how they called the wrath of Poseiden down on Japan, and it was around for 2000 years... would scientists proclaim that the Fukushima disaster was due to Poseiden?

Edit: Oh, and napkin math indicates that it'd be about 294 cubic feet (based on NASA oxygen consumption levels). More importantly, where would he get water from?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

chaosiscash said:


> Major Highway said:
> 
> 
> > It is the same as Santa Claus, as a child, many people were told Santa was real, but then when they got older, the adults let them in on the little secret, so the truth comes out.
> ...


Ummm.... and, uh, you remember those teeth you put under the pillow?


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 23, 2011)

badal said:


> Major, youve used two things to prove your point that actually derail it completely, Santa Claus and Zeus.


Santa Claus is a bad example because he was just the subject of an old fairy tale that is being perverted for financial gain in modern society.

Zeus, on the other hand, is an excellent example. I assure you that the ancient Greeks were just as convinced that Zeus was the God of Gods as you are that the Christian God is the one true God. They also had writings and teachings that "proved" that he existed. They also thought that the sun was dragged into the sky in by a chariot piloted by Helios. Sounds crazy now, doesn't it?

The bible does include verifiable events because the writers tried to incorporate real events into their stories to lend credence to them. I believe the historical facts in the bible, but I guess my lack of "faith" prevents me from believing in the "miracles."


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> Well, both of them are fervently believed by many people until the point of disillusionment. The god of the bible is fervently believe by many people until the point of disillusionment. The fact that people have died because they believe does not make it true. People died because of so called "weapons of mass destruction", is there any evidence that such things existed? It's debatable just like God is.


One wonders: Is the "no WMD" argument ever going to get a term of it's own, like godwinning of threads?

/threadjack


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 23, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> The age of the earth is verifiable - roughly - through scientific means. The expansion of the universe is now "visible" to us; based on the rate of said expansion, the age of the universe itself is calculable. Those are not theories. They are as close to fact as it is possible to obtain.


Many people (scientists) state this. But is it really so? If this "sphere" of a universe is constantly expanding (and it's a really dark sphere), how in the hell do we determine where the edge is? So galaxies and stars are moving away from each other at XYZ lightyears / year. Where's the edge of the universe?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

badal said:


> Yes, both of us were blessed to have been born in a christian family. I pity and pray for those that were'nt, but that doesnt reduce my faith in or love for the God that caused the whale to swallow Jonah.


But would a kind and loving God allow people to go to Hell merely for not accepting His Son as the Savior?

I wouldn't think so. Always had a problem with that being raised Baptist.

I don't know the answers, and none of us really does. But in the end, I believe that a kind and loving God would reveal The Truth to us, and allow us the final decision to accept The Truth or not. regardless of whatever religion we practiced.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the earth is verifiable - roughly - through scientific means. The expansion of the universe is now "visible" to us; based on the rate of said expansion, the age of the universe itself is calculable. Those are not theories. They are as close to fact as it is possible to obtain.
> ...


I can't accept that the speed of light is as fast as we can go, either. I just can't mentally accept a physical top speed.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the earth is verifiable - roughly - through scientific means. The expansion of the universe is now "visible" to us; based on the rate of said expansion, the age of the universe itself is calculable. Those are not theories. They are as close to fact as it is possible to obtain.
> ...


Note: I'm not an astrophysicist, or a physicist at all. This is my understanding of the situation, and my be incorrect.

Let's say you have a dozen balls floating at the "center" of an infinitely large, uniform pool. If you apply a force outward at the exact center of the pool, you create a wave that will continue out, getting weaker and smaller as the force spreads to a larger effective area. By the actions of the balls, you can calculate the distance from the "center" of the pool to the outermost edge of the circular wave.

Again, it's a theory. But it's a theory that matches our best understanding of the physics of the universe.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 23, 2011)

Well, I believe the fast speed at which we can travel is limited to the amount of energy absorbed by us in the process and, subsequently, will be whatever amount of energy it takes for us to vaporize.

I calculated that to be 1.34 times the speed of light in a vacuum. And, yes, I used the MERM.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 23, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Karen S. P.E. said:
> ...


Has the center of the universe been determined?


----------



## Road Guy (Aug 23, 2011)

There was a really interesting program on a few weeks ago on the the discovery chanel, but it basically said that due to calculating "sound rays" NASA was able to track back (an estimated calculation of course) the origins of all known suns, solar systems, etc to a common point in the universe.. it was pretty cool if you get a chance to catch it


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 23, 2011)

so thunder/lightening storms aren't God and the angels bowling in heaven?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Master slacker said:
> ...


It is me.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

snickerd3 said:


> so thunder/lightening storms aren't God and the angels bowling in heaven?


And when it rains with the sun out, the Devil isn't beating his wife?


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 23, 2011)

That reminds me, ask anyone this question and see what their reply is.

*Do you still beat your wife?*


----------



## snickerd3 (Aug 23, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> That reminds me, ask anyone this question and see what their reply is.
> *Do you still beat your wife?*


yep, mr snick still still beats me every time we play Risk or chess.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > badal said:
> ...


My viewpoint of Heaven &amp; Hell is slightly different than the "Fire &amp; Brimstone" belief.

Heaven, for the believers, is simply living in God's presence - physical or otherwise.

The "lake of fire" isn't for non-believers; it's for those that believed but abused their positions; for those that knowingly cause issues for other people. I'm not talking about just people that sin; everyone does that to an extent. I'm talking about those that betray others so that they can get more power - those that repeatedly and persistently use their positions to abuse those under them - those that knowingly and willingly deceive others to commit evil acts in the name of God.

For non-believers - those that rejected God - they get something else. Specifically, exactly what they wanted: No God. As strange as it may seem to atheists, imagine for a second that the Creator does exist, that his Light makes everything around him joyous, and rids his followers of all pain and sorrow. And now that he's revealed Himself - you are completely cut off from Him.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 23, 2011)

Personally, I find any Holy book to be nothing more than a series of stories to help set your moral compass (akin to Aesops Fables) as well as "wives tales" to help teach the population about proper diet and survival for the time in which they originated. Alot of these diet and survival stories are severely outdated and provide incomplete or inaccurate information, like using a 19th century industrial manufacturing processes for work today (can you say mercury, lead, and asbestos?). Shellfish are seen as an abomination (Leviticus) and pork is seen as "dirty" because at the times these were introduced to their respective holy books, the population did not have the safe and clean harvesting, preparation, and storage capabilities we have today, and because it was easier to write them off as "dirty" because they didn't have the understanding of bacteria, fungus, disease, and why people would get sick and die from eating them. They wrote their "policies" and stories based on the limited information they had, and unlike the manufacturing manuals and policies we have generated over the last hundred or so years, the "policies" became hard centuries old, unquestioned and unchanged.

I also agree with Highway in that these stories originated 2000 years ago and were passed on by word of mouth for centuries before they were ever written. Then they were re-written by their respective religious figures who have been proven time and time again to be very politically biased. Additionally, how many Kings, Lords, Sultans, etc had sections of the Bible possibly re-written to "allow" their actions to be ok (Can you say King Henry VIII?)? These revisions were to allow these heads of state to avoid religious fall-outs, not to update them like the manual example I referred to above.

Combine all of that with the language translations. Has anyone seen an American movie translated to Mandarin, then have re-translated english subtitles across the bottom (lookup Mandarin Return of the Jedi on youtube sometime)? Even the original intent of what was said is oftentimes butchered.

I have no issues with people using them as a moral compass. There are alot of great life lessons to be learned on how to be a good person and productive member of society (kindness, love, trust, friendship, honor, humility, etc). It's when they start using the Bible as fact is when I start having issues. I like to use the current internet cliche: Pics or it didn't happen.

[/rant]

&lt;puts on fire-resistant suit&gt;


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Master slacker said:


> That reminds me, ask anyone this question and see what their reply is.
> *Do you still beat your wife?*


I know several people that would cheerfully answer that with a "Yes, but only when she begs".

/I have some weird friends.


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 23, 2011)

Most people I have asked don't acknowledge the "still" in the question. After they answer, they realize that there was a "still" and they look silly.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Dexman PE said:


> Personally, I find any Holy book to be nothing more than a series of stories to help set your moral compass (akin to Aesops Fables) as well as "wives tales" to help teach the population about proper diet and survival for the time in which they originated. Alot of these diet and survival stories are severely outdated and provide incomplete or inaccurate information, like using a 19th century industrial manufacturing processes for work today (can you say mercury, lead, and asbestos?). Shellfish are seen as an abomination (Leviticus) and pork is seen as "dirty" because at the times these were introduced to their respective holy books, the population did not have the safe and clean harvesting, preparation, and storage capabilities we have today, and because it was easier to write them off as "dirty" because they didn't have the understanding of bacteria, fungus, disease, and why people would get sick and die from eating them. They wrote their "policies" and stories based on the limited information they had, and unlike the manufacturing manuals and policies we have generated over the last hundred or so years, the "policies" became hard centuries old, unquestioned and unchanged.
> I also agree with Highway in that these stories originated 2000 years ago and were passed on by word of mouth for centuries before they were ever written. Then they were re-written by their respective religious figures who have been proven time and time again to be very politically biased. Additionally, how many Kings, Lords, Sultans, etc had sections of the Bible possibly re-written to "allow" their actions to be ok (Can you say King Henry VIII?)? These revisions were to allow these heads of state to avoid religious fall-outs, not to update them like the manual example I referred to above.
> 
> Combine all of that with the language translations. Has anyone seen an American movie translated to Mandarin, then have re-translated english subtitles across the bottom (lookup Mandarin Return of the Jedi on youtube sometime)? Even the original intent of what was said is oftentimes butchered.
> ...


Sounds reasonable. And yeah, I agree, I think a lot of translation errors are in the bible, both old and new testament.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> I'm with you Dexman on everything except the moral part. There are far too many examples of religion being downright immoral for me to accept that. That being said, atheists are not always moral either, no matter what Dawkins or Hitchens tries to suggest. You either are or aren't moral, whether it is because you are christian, muslim, or any other religion or non-religion.


I said "help" with the moral part. It obviously implies alot more other influences necessary to make a truly good person.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> I'm with you Dexman on everything except the moral part. There are far too many examples of religion being downright immoral for me to accept that. That being said, atheists are not always moral either, no matter what Dawkins or Hitchens tries to suggest. You either are or aren't moral, whether it is because you are christian, muslim, or any other religion or non-religion.


Oh yes, so much this. Though one could argue that if you are absolutely true to Christianity in every way, shape or form, you cannot be immoral - it's just that nobody actually is.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> Dexman - fair enough
> Karen - I totally disagree, if you are actually true to Christianity, you will be more immoral.


OK, let me rephrase. True to the Christ-like ideal. Willing to stand up (generally) non-violently for what you believe, unwilling to throw stones at others, but willing to defend your faith with words and give aid to those around you.

That's the ideal I strive for. I don't care if other Christians look down upon me or judge me - and that happens, believe me - but I try to live what I consider a "Christ-like" life. I fail, frequently, but I try.


----------



## csb (Aug 23, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Master slacker said:
> 
> 
> > Karen S. P.E. said:
> ...


What about ludicrous speed?


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> I think God must be trying to smite me, we just had an earthquake in Richmond.


I was just talking to a friend in CA about that, she said one of her coworkers was on camera in a videoconference.


----------



## Wolverine (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> People died because of so called "weapons of mass destruction", is there any evidence that such things existed? It's debatable just like God is.


 oking: Just briefly weighing in on the subject, I say the question is disingenuous and has become an oversimplified point of polarization. Iraq *had * WMD - chemical, biological, and pre-nuclear. This is fact. *Did the state of readiness of Iraqi WMD warrant an invasion? * This is the subjectively debatable question. Many people believed based on what they had seen that it was so. Many people were skeptical and unconvinced. I propose that this is metaphorical to the present discussion.

There is no doubt that the universe does exist and it certainly does seem to have a lot of mathematical order to it, eh?



Master slacker said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > The age of the earth is verifiable - roughly - through scientific means. The expansion of the universe is now "visible" to us; based on the rate of said expansion, the age of the universe itself is calculable. Those are not theories. They are as close to fact as it is possible to obtain.
> ...


Back to the original question, How Does It Happen: 
Scientists often foolishly ignore variables and hold as constants that which they should not.

As the universe is expanding, so according to quantum mechano-physics, time is stretching right along with it.

As we stand here from a terrestrial perspective, earth is clearly 5 billion years old. Has anyone stepped off the treadmill to observe if the plane is really flying though?

There ya go DK! Gave you one good answer 

*EDIT: Felt earthquake in Atlanta. I just announced to the office I felt an earthquake, they laughed at me, and bingo, it comes over the wire.*


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> I think God must be trying to smite me, we just had an earthquake in Richmond.


I heard there was a 5.3 in Colorado this morning.


----------



## Dark Knight (Aug 23, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Major Highway said:
> 
> 
> > I think God must be trying to smite me, we just had an earthquake in Richmond.
> ...


I was going to post about that too.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 23, 2011)

It's the apocalypse...REPENT!


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

Major Highway said:


> The epicenter was about 40 miles or so from where I am, a place called Mineral, VA. The guy in the office next to me lives there, hope his house is okay.


i thought that area was fairly stable, seismically.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 23, 2011)

I had pizza for lunch, and my hands smell like cheese.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (Aug 23, 2011)

Dark Knight said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Major Highway said:
> ...


Yep in Southern Colorado, just north of the NM border. It was reported that this area is also seismically "stable" too...


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 23, 2011)

Dexman PE said:


> Dark Knight said:
> 
> 
> > Capt Worley PE said:
> ...


That was my first thought when I read about it this morning.


----------



## mrt406 (Aug 23, 2011)

Wolverine said:


> There is no doubt that the universe does exist



Or maybe it's all just in my head.


----------



## envirotex (Aug 23, 2011)

VTEnviro said:


> I had pizza for lunch, and my hands smell like cheese.


Provolone or mozzarella?


----------



## envirotex (Aug 23, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Dexman PE said:
> 
> 
> > Dark Knight said:
> ...


That's where the volcanoes are...


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Wolverine said:


> Major Highway said:
> 
> 
> > People died because of so called "weapons of mass destruction", is there any evidence that such things existed? It's debatable just like God is.
> ...


Actually, they didn't have WMD at the time we invaded. They didn't have WMD at the time we won. The only evidence of WMDs - is from WMDs they had before Gulf War 1. They were working on developing new ones, but had not developed them at the time of invasion - in fact, they were very far behind North Korea and Iran in their work towards getting them.



Wolverine said:


> There is no doubt that the universe does exist and it certainly does seem to have a lot of mathematical order to it, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting idea. As I said, I'm not a physicist, so I'll have to think about the implications of this.

Here's my first thought: If your perspective shifts as reality shifts around you, does it matter if the measurement is relative to a non-constant?

Draw a 3" line of infinitely small width on a 12" long sheet. Then pull the sheet in such a way that the sheet becomes 24" long, and the line becomes 6". From the perspective of the line, does it matter if the reality of the length is different than the original? It's still 1/4 the length of the sheet.


----------



## Wolverine (Aug 23, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Actually, they didn't have WMD at the time we invaded. They didn't have WMD at the time we won. The only evidence of WMDs - is from WMDs they had before Gulf War 1. They were working on developing new ones, but had not developed them at the time of invasion - in fact, they were very far behind North Korea and Iran in their work towards getting them.


 Ahh, I see - they didn't have the WMD's that they did have, but they were working on the ones they didn't have, and now they don't have any. Got it. That clarifies a lot.
Can we get back to discussing the mathematical tendencies of the Almighty? What about pi? Where does that come from?

BTW, it's been documented that even Saddam believed he had them. Click here to see proof: PROOF!


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Aug 23, 2011)

envirotex said:


> VTEnviro said:
> 
> 
> > I had pizza for lunch, and my hands smell like cheese.
> ...


Parmesan.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

Wolverine said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, they didn't have WMD at the time we invaded. They didn't have WMD at the time we won. The only evidence of WMDs - is from WMDs they had before Gulf War 1. They were working on developing new ones, but had not developed them at the time of invasion - in fact, they were very far behind North Korea and Iran in their work towards getting them.
> ...


From the "reliable source" of Wikipedia, so grain of salt etc.



> Captured documentsMain article: Operation Iraqi Freedom documents
> 
> Operation Iraqi Freedom documents refers to some 48,000 boxes of documents, audiotapes and videotapes that were captured by the U.S. military during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Many of these documents seem to make clear that Saddam's regime had given up on seeking a WMD capability by the mid-1990s. Associated Press reported, "Repeatedly in the transcripts, Saddam and his lieutenants remind each other that Iraq destroyed its chemical and biological weapons in the early 1990s, and shut down those programs and the nuclear-bomb program, which had never produced a weapon." At one 1996 presidential meeting, top weapons program official Amer Mohammed Rashid, describes his conversation with UN weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus: "We don't have anything to hide, so we're giving you all the details." At another meeting Saddam told his deputies, "We cooperated with the resolutions 100 percent and you all know that, and the 5 percent they claim we have not executed could take them 10 years to (verify). Don't think for a minute that we still have WMD. We have nothing."[114] U.S. Congressman Peter Hoekstra called for the U.S. government to put the remaining documents on the Internet so Arabic speakers around the world can help translate the documents.[115]
> 
> ...


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 23, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Actually, they didn't have WMD at the time we invaded. They didn't have WMD at the time we won. The only evidence of WMDs - is from WMDs they had before Gulf War 1. They were working on developing new ones, but had not developed them at the time of invasion - in fact, they were very far behind North Korea and Iran in their work towards getting them.


You do know that chemical weapons are considered WMD, yes? You'd be very silly to think there were no chemical weapons (WMDs!) in Iraq in the 90's, 00's or 10's.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, they didn't have WMD at the time we invaded. They didn't have WMD at the time we won. The only evidence of WMDs - is from WMDs they had before Gulf War 1. They were working on developing new ones, but had not developed them at the time of invasion - in fact, they were very far behind North Korea and Iran in their work towards getting them.
> ...


I didn't know Gulf War 2 (the specific situation I was talking about) included the '90s.

By the time we invaded - referencing WMDs - they had no usable chemical weapons. Some locations were found that had early 90s era sarin and mustard gas, but they had decayed to the point of uselessness and been improperly disposed of.

In other words, read my above post.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 23, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> I didn't know Gulf War 2 (the specific situation I was talking about) included the '90s.


The Operation Iraqi Freedom (aka Iraq War... but only internet trolls call if Gulf War 2) started in 2003 - but I think you knew that.



Karen S. P.E. said:


> By the time we invaded - referencing WMDs - they had no usable chemical weapons. Some locations were found that had early 90s era sarin and mustard gas, but they had decayed to the point of uselessness and been improperly disposed of.


And you know this how? All you "know" about this topic is from what you choose to read while trolling the internet - so please don't pass off as fact what you have no first hand knowledge of. You might take a look through the Wikileaks to see another perspective.



Karen S. P.E. said:


> In other words, read my above post.


Once was enough, thanks.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 23, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't know Gulf War 2 (the specific situation I was talking about) included the '90s.
> ...


Yes, I did know that.. and if it's not the second gulf war, what is it? The first war was also a war in Iraq, as I recall (though I was distracted a bit at that time).



IlPadrino said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > By the time we invaded - referencing WMDs - they had no usable chemical weapons. Some locations were found that had early 90s era sarin and mustard gas, but they had decayed to the point of uselessness and been improperly disposed of.
> ...


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20020542-503543.html

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/thr...hreadid=4668095

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wi...rising-results/

Here's a quote from the last one:



> The WMD diehards will likely find some comfort in these newly-WikiLeaked documents. Skeptics will note that these relatively small WMD stockpiles were hardly the kind of grave danger that the Bush administration presented in the run-up to the war.
> But the more salient issue may be how insurgents and Islamic extremists (possibly with the help of Iran) attempted to use these lethal and exotic arms. As Spencer noted earlier, a January 2006 war log claims that “neuroparalytic” chemical weapons were smuggled in from Iran.


Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 23, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.


Oh... so you accept there were usable, but not large enough to start a war over?


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 24, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.
> ...


:appl: :appl: :appl:

Honestly, though, don't you get tired of responding over the railing of the bridge?


----------



## Otter (Aug 24, 2011)

I anticipate a deeply religious experience.


----------



## Boon (Aug 24, 2011)

After I graduate, I'm gonna get drunk every night.


----------



## csb (Aug 24, 2011)




----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 24, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Now the question is, is there a difference between a very small, old cache and no cache at all? Yes, but not enough of one to start a war over.
> ...


I'm not sure when I said I thought they were usable. Tested positive for a chemical doesn't mean usable. And the more recent caches were probably imports from other countries.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 24, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> IlPadrino said:
> 
> 
> > Karen S. P.E. said:
> ...


You really are insufferable. If you'd already said (written, to be pedantic!) you accept they were usable, why would I have asked the question?

You're just about one silly post away from getting http://engineerboards.com/index.php?act=us...e&amp;uid=18930'd!


----------



## pbrme (Aug 24, 2011)

^^ :bananalama:


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 24, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> You really are insufferable. If you'd already said (written, to be pedantic!) you accept they were usable, why would I have asked the question?
> You're just about one silly post away from getting http://engineerboards.com/index.php?act=us...e&amp;uid=18930'd!


You said:



> Oh... so you accept there were usable, but not large enough to start a war over?


But you're mischaracterizing what I'd said. I'd said chemical weapons were found. I didn't say they were usable chemical weapons from the time Saddam controlled the country. They were either degraded weapons, or newer imported weapons. There may have been enough degraded weapons for him to have rebuilt a partial stockpile; I'm not a chemist or chemical engineer, I don't know how that works - I wouldn't think it would just separate and be useless, so there might be some sort of chemical they could use to refresh the weapons somehow. But there still weren't enough to be considered a major threat, and low-end chemical weapons aren't exactly hard to make (delivery systems, however, are).

So, to answer your question - No, I don't think the weapons were usable. I do think they could have been made usable, but from the sounds of it Saddam himself didn't know they were there. Given that, I can only assume that some of the generals he placed in charge of dismantling them tried to hide some from the inspectors, and ended up losing them in truth to either theft or stupidity.

(Also, the question sounded rhetorical to me, hence my answer.)

As for the ignore list, eh, not sure I care. Personally, I think it's better to have honest debate (or as close to it as you can get on the internet) than to ignore people that don't agree with you, but you might disagree.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 24, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> But you're mischaracterizing what I'd said.


I didn't characterize *anything* you said. I asked a question.



Karen S. P.E. said:


> (Also, the question sounded rhetorical to me, hence my answer.)


If it sounded like a rhetorical question, why did you answer it?



Karen S. P.E. said:


> As for the ignore list, eh, not sure I care. Personally, I think it's better to have honest debate (or as close to it as you can get on the internet) than to ignore people that don't agree with you, but you might disagree.


OK... you're at 0.8 and will quickly be in negative territory at this pace. You're only saving grace might be the realm of imaginary numbers!


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 24, 2011)

Capt Worley PE said:


> Honestly, though, don't you get tired of responding over the railing of the bridge?


Taking the day off from work, so this is my public service!


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 24, 2011)




----------



## envirotex (Aug 24, 2011)

opcorn:


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 24, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> Capt Worley PE said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, though, don't you get tired of responding over the railing of the bridge?
> ...


Kudos! Good of you to think of your fellow man!


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 24, 2011)

wilheldp_PE said:


>


Yeah... I'm rather prone to that issue, unfortunately. Also the Wiki Walk, especially at TV Tropes.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 24, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> Also the Wiki Walk, especially at TV Tropes.


I had no idea what you were talking about so I googled "TV Tropes" and got to their homepage. I clicked on random and this is what came up: The Engineer. Coincidence?

Anyway... get this back on topic, please!

0.9 - you're now trending in the right direction.


----------



## csb (Aug 24, 2011)

"Miracle of the Sun" with the appearance of the Virgin Mary. Either you believe the sun danced or you believe people staring at the sun will eventually see things.


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 24, 2011)

csb said:


> "Miracle of the Sun" with the appearance of the Virgin Mary. Either you believe the sun danced or you believe people staring at the sun will eventually see things.


Yeah, I'd lean towards the latter.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 24, 2011)

Bleeding or tearing statues...


----------



## Exception Collection (Aug 24, 2011)

IlPadrino said:


> Karen S. P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > Also the Wiki Walk, especially at TV Tropes.
> ...


You're only saying that because you haven't figured out how insidious TV Tropes is. TV Tropes will ruin your life.


----------



## ElCid03 (Aug 25, 2011)

Karen S. P.E. said:


> IlPadrino said:
> 
> 
> > Karen S. P.E. said:
> ...



Entertaining reading after the duty day.


----------

