Posts Made By: James Brown

Doug Matulis said:

...Looks like Noah's Ark is coming to your backyard, well almost. AiG, your favorite museum of creation, is planning on building a life-size replica of Noah's Ark. I can't wait!

You know what would be really cool. After they build the life-size replica, they should try to do this with it:

"You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

I wonder if all those critters and that stuff will fit? Do you suppose that they might avoid that experiment Doug, just to avoid some inconvenient truths?

J

Doug Matulis said:

This is a great victory for the American people, the rule of law and the constitutional principles of individual liberty and freedom!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/13/federal-judge-rules-favor-virginia-challenge-health-care-law/

Hi Doug:

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased with this order and I think that it might be correct under the law... but it is a bit early to be declaring victory.

This issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. The initial trial court result merely sets the stage for the later appeals. Other District Courts have dismissed challenges. The big one pending in Florida (22 states involved) is still pending.

Also, (and this is an important point of law) since this is a question of Constitutional interpretation, each level of appellate court gets to take a look at the Constitutional issues "fresh." In other words, there is no presumption that the trial court got it right when the case is appealed. So each side goes into the appeal on equal footing as far as overcoming any legal presumption is concerned.

(This is not the case in a criminal law appeal for example, where there is a presumption that the jury decided fact issues correctly)

Still, it's a good start!

Jim

Doug Matulis said:

Do you all see this as a credible threat to the country?

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240045

Not really Doug. I view these hyper-partisan web pages that prey on citizen's fears and ignorance as an inevitable consequence of free speech, not a credible threat to our security. I figure that most citizens are able to spot the illegitimacy of the conspiracy-theory garbage posted as "fact" on these types of pages. So for most of us, no real harm is done. Unless of course you are silly enough to buy the vitamins or make the investments advertised on the side-bar.

There are historical precedents for this kind of thing. "Yellow journalism" has been around since the invention of the printing press. We still have things like the "National Enquirer" on our newsstands. Also, who can forget Rita Skeeter?

So, in summary, I would say that these types of ridiculous web pages masquerading as news sources are not a credible national threat.

Jim

Happy Holidays Refet!

Jim

Doug Matulis said:

To All:

Wishing you and your family a Merry Christmas, Happy Holydays, and a wonderful New Year filled with health and joy.

Your favorite Fundie,

Doug

Merry Christmas, to Doug and all!

Jim

Yes Doug.

Some of the Founders were devout Christians. Some were Deists, some were agnostics. The point is really not about counting noses though. The point is understanding the nature of the mighty secular government that this diverse crew created.

This great free republic was not born of atheism. It was not born of Christianity either. It was born of the enlightenment when people realized that individual men have rights and are entitled to personal liberty. The founders; Christians, Deists and agnostics alike were wise enough to know that the best and maybe the only way to protect all freedoms, including religious freedoms was a secular state where all men are equals.

Merry Christmas!

Jim

Floyd Blue said:

Here is a picture of both units. The TEC 140 Flattener is on the left and the AP Reducer is on the right.
You can see how much larger the TEC Flattener is, with an 88mm lens.
I will use each for the FOV and focal ratio it provides. The Flattener will give f/7 and the Reducer gives f/5.6.

Hi Floyd:

I don't think that it matters at all in a practical sense, but the TEC flattener actually gives an f ratio of about 7.25. In other words the focal length of the system goes from 980 to about 1015 mm with the flattener installed. (According to my plate solves) The only situation I can think of where this info might matter would be if one were planning a mosaic with a very specific and tight overlap area.

I'm sure you've tested yours by now, but for those who might not know, the TEC flattener produces an exceptionally flat field. (The attached is the entire un-cropped surface of a 35mm chip.)

Jim

Keith:

In my view, this type of thing cheapens religion and makes serious and sober spiritual people out to be laughingstocks by association. The Bible is not about science and the more specific examples you mention, of atoms, beasts, stars or the earth and sky read a whole lot more like myth and fable than science. In other words you have to torture the meaning of these phrases to even hint at, let alone legitimately suggest that any profound scientific truth was miraculously revealed to the ancients.

Why bother with this foolish exercise? Like I mentioned to Doug the other day, embracing science and human knowledge hardly compromises proper theology. Man evolved a superb brain. If God exists it would be hard to imagine any reason that he would be opposed to us using those brains to the best of our ability.

Jim

Jeffrey Counsil said:

Any of the believers...

The book of Genesis is that foundation from which everything else is built upon...

Jeff:

Non-literalist believer here. I do not think that Genesis is "foundational" in the way that you are describing. The Bible is best viewed as a library, a collection of sacred scriptures. The validity of the collection does not rest on the validity of any one part, particularly on the literal validity of any given part.

Some of the Bible is historical in nature, but much of it is not. Genesis is ancient creation myth with allegorical lessons thrown in. The authors never intended that it be taken as literal science in the fashion you have outlined. The important parts are the description of the beginning of man's relationship with One God, not a supposed scientific creation account.

Doug obviously will disagree. His position is a super-minority position among the teaching of Christian Churches world wide.

The authors, who knew what they were doing when they wrote down the Genesis account, would probably be shocked that some small subset of modern man is taking a clearly presented allegory/teaching-legend literally. The authors would know that those moderns are in fact missing the point of the story.

Jim

Floyd Blue said:

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. But just because you do not like them, do not try to violate others rights to own one, just because you are uncomfortable.

I'm late to the party I see. Oh well.

Floyd, is anyone, anyone at all who is remotely credible, calling for a generalized gun ban in this day and age?

What I'm saying is that the concept of "do not try to violate others rights to own one, just because you are uncomfortable" is a red herring. No sane person is calling for a ban of your right to own a gun, and even if they did call for such a ban, the Supreme Court has made it clear that such a wholesale ban is unconstitutional.

What is permitted under the Constitution are reasonable laws setting forth reasonable restrictions on the right of private citizens to own weapons. Those who made slippery slope arguments earlier in the thread need to get a new argument. Reasonable restrictions on lawful ownership are always going to be part of the various gun/weapon laws.

Reasonable restrictions.

That's really the only legitimate question. What is reasonable? Obviously opinions will vary.

Jim