Follow up Alright, All You Dashing, Swaggering Bush Pilots

Barnyard BOb -- wrote in message . ..
On 4 Sep 2003 01:04:43 -0700, (pac plyer) wrote:

snowbird101 master cross breeder of barnyard animals and hound dogs
wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmmmm.

IMO...
The above is totally out of character for any BWB persona.
More like a Jaun puppet, if a non SWAG must be made.

Like I said elsewhere, if I were voting, I'd vote against
"sock puppet" and for "stooge."

I have my reasons, but I admit it's possible I give Mr.
Phillips too little credit and "sock" isn't impossible.

But it strikes me as a moot point either way.

Either way, he's shown himself to be lacking in either
credibility, or sense, and he ought to be treated accordingly.

Don't believe anything you can't independently verify.

Cheers,
Sydney

In article , Mark Hickey
writes:


Imagine suddenly finding yourself before the very being who created
life, the universe and everything. Someone who could populate a void
with a few trillion stars just 'cuz he felt like it. Someone who
didn't discover DNA, but assembled it.

I try to imagine how ANYONE in that situation would want to tell him
what he did wrong, and why they should be admitted into his presence
because "they earned it".

Somehow, I don't think that's likely... but that's just my take on it.

Mark Hickey



Mark,

Its all about FAITH. You either have it or you don't. If you do, you can
easily find the justification for it. If you don't, you can also easily find
the justification. No amount of argument is going to change the minds of the
other party so the argument remains endless.

The best that either can do is to accept the position of the others and allow
both to live in peace. I will agree to not try and change you, you agree to
not try and change me.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article , Barnyard BOb --
writes:


snowbird101 master cross breeder of barnyard animals and hound dogs
wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmmmm.

IMO...
The above is totally out of character for any BWB persona.
More like a Jaun puppet, if a non SWAG must be made.


*BARNYARD* BOb --



In any case, it did search for a new low and found it.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

pac plyer wrote:


And Barnyard, Robert, Roger, Morgans (forgot: already ploinked me.)
others: My bad. I will sit in the corner and never mention Sydney
again. Not good enough? O.K, I'll be nice to her and not pull her
hair anymore. O.K, O.K I'll say I'm sorry! Geeez! ;-)

pac "grouchy old stooge puppet crow-eating Bart Simpson" plyer

happy?

You didn't say "pretty please"!

(*unplonk because I'm told I ought to read this*)

(pac plyer) wrote in message om...
You're getting enough support from the Rah regulars to let
me know that I am wrong about you in General.

Fairly spoken.... a fair beginning. I appreciate that.

I don't have a grudge against you Sydney. But you have a tendency,
more than most posters, to escalate things with disrespectful slams
embedded in your prose.

Boy that "wrong about you in general" part sure wore off
quick!

And why does the phrase "Pot! Kettle!" leap to my lips?

Considering how you've responded to some people here who were
totally civil and by NO stretch slamming you, if you reached
a new low I don't feel I can claim credit. Sorry. Grandma
said, you can't make someone show a side of themselves they
don't have.

It's true I can "dish it out" when provoked, and don't sit well
with insecure folk who can "dish it out but can't take it". More
than most posters, escalate? Don't think that's my rep, but
I'll leave that for others.

Which brings us to:

All I know is I dislike the rift between you and Bill.
... I've seen no effort by you to meet the guy
halfway. Every time I'm talking to somebody else about something
else, you jump in and bring it up again. snipppitty-doo-dah

Sorry, mturner, nice try. Much better than your last 5-6
posts, but still much too thick to be believable from what's
gone before. Still a big disconnect from reality here IMO.

You still look like Anonymous Agenda Boy with zip credibility
here. But that's me.

Show the world that I'm wrong. Let this go, tell funny stories
about flying, and the RAHian world will eat from your hand.

Keep on with the POP and BAH, and the credibility factor will
dwindle.

Just predictions.

*replonk*
Sydney

God wants us to trust him.
Remember that trust isn't a right, it has to be earned.

Answered very well by another contributor. I'll simply add that God
owes you nothing-zero-zip-zilch-nada, as he already 0wnZ you lock,
stock, and barrel.


You're mixing apples and oranges. We're not talking about a
technology demonstration, we're talking about a singular historical
event.

The historical is irrelevant, it's the singular that's the conundrum.
If it only apparently happened once 2000 years ago, we can safely call it
observer/experimental error and ignore it.

You're still terribly confused, attempting to apply the tools of
science to a question of history. Worse, you don't even recognize the
fallacy of doing so.

Just because an event only happened once does not mean that it never
happened! The K-T impact only happened once. The flooding of the
Mediterranean basin only happened once. Krakatoa only blew up once.
Same for Mt. St. Helens.

I already know that you're going to say, "but those are within the
realm of reason, and a resurrection is not." That is true only within
a worldview that DENIES THE POSSIBILITY of a singular resurrection a
priori. You're beginning with a premise, and using that premise to
reject any evidence that would lead to a conclusion that conflicts
with it.

IT'S BAD LOGIC!

The resurrection of Jesus is singular for a reason. It's only
*needed* once. You may smirk and say, "how convenient," but that
doesn't change the facts. In the Christian worldview, only one
resurrection is required. One does not expect to see further
examples. The model does not predict them.

The question is, did the one really happen or not? You're simply
refusing to investigate. You're ducking the question.
Bwaaaawk-buk-buk-buk-buk-buk!


But continued observation and experimentation has led to greater
understanding of how things work.
No observation or experimentation has resulted in resurrection. Until it
does, there's no need to change our understanding.

Q.E.D. The point is, your modernist worldview is insufficient to the
task. It disregards a large chunk of reality simply because it cannot
be measured by "scientific" means. A friend recently sent me a very
apropos quote from Albert Einstein on the subject: "Not everything
that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted
counts."


Today, laboratory observations of quantum synchronicity phenomena
appear to violate the laws of physics. Does that mean that the
observations are erroneous, or that the "laws of physics" need to be
revised?

No, because they're predicted and expected by quantum mechanics.

Not the first time! The laws of QM were written to *explain*
observations that contradicted the accepted laws of physics. The
Newtonian worldview was insufficient to the task - "real" reality
could not be adequately or defined by F=MA anymore. So the definition
of "real" was expanded to include color, strange, and charm. The
point is that "real reality" is much larger than the shadow that you
accept.

Theories which don't predict and can't be tested or verified are useless and
worthless.

Such as the idea of one phylum morphing into a different phylum over
millions of years? Can't test it or verify it. Not repeatable.
Doesn't predict anything, at least not anything of use to us, or
anything we can measure. So it must be worthless, right? :-P


Now you can say that the Resurrection predicts an after-life... but unless
someone comes back and confirms then it's untestable.
If someone DOES come back, it satisfies my required for repeatability.
But then it would also supply proof, which defies faith, so it can't be
ALLOWED to happen. A nice little bit of circular logic.

Nice little straw man. Not what I claimed at all. The resurrection
is not a theory. It's an historical event. You're using the wrong
hammer.


Prayer works. So do sugar pills, with the same efficacy. Consult your
physician for possible side effects of either.


Wrong hammer again. I expect an MD to know about pills, but not
necessarily about prayer. Consult your clergy for evidence about the
efficacy of prayer.


Of course I know "Flatland".
And if the sphere should pass through flatland but once, what need is there
to explain it?


Maybe because it's coming back? :-D


And just because they're in a 2D world, doesn't prohibit them from
formulating a 3D model.
That, however, doesn't make the 3D world real (see superstring theory... not
to be confused with Silly String).
Further, while there's a elegant 3D explanation in this case, it's not
REQUIRED.
You could just as easily explain it as a growing and shrinking circle, and
it's just as valid.


No, because the third dimension and the sphere are in fact REAL, which
we can see from our three-dimensional vantage point. The "it's just a
growing and shrinking circle" explanation is WRONG. It does, however,
work better than any non-supernatural explanation of the evidences of
the Resurrection of Jesus that you've offered to date. At least the
skeptical flatlanders had an explanation that FIT THE EVIDENCE.


You misread me. No modernistic high-horse here!
I'm not judging the people of 2000 years ago and saying they're gullible....
I'm saying people TODAY are gullible, and the people of 2000 years ago were
likely no better.

Accepted. So then I assume that you'd be willing to take up the
challenge and look at the evidence at face value? I dare ya!

Murder and pillage are also universally punished.
Not when it's government policy, or if there's no government. Just
ask anyone from Cambodia, Bosnia, or Rwanda.
Exceptions which prove the rule.


If exceptions prove the rule, then any rule can - perhaps should -
have exceptions. For example, the rule that says dead people don't
come back to life?


There's a fairly large school of thought within
even conservative Christianity that suggests that Hell is eternal
destruction, not eternal torment. Dead and gone, not dead and
burning. Either way, it's a ****-poor alternative to eternal life in
paradise. Imagine - no need for annuals or pre-flights! :-D

Or maybe an endless string of BFRs! :P


Shoot, that'd just be Purgatory. If you're *really* unrepentant, you
bust a TFR and get a ramp check on every flight. ;-^


But is paradise an actual, available alternative or are you just fooling
yourself?
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" clearly applies.

I thought *you* were supposed to be the optimist here. :-) We're
back to Pascal's wager. If you're right, I gain nothing and you lose
nothing. If I'm right, I gain everything and you lose everything.

To your question, though, yes - paradise is actual and available. The
PTS is a bitch, though. "Excruciating" would not be too strong a word
for it. No one has ever been able to meet the specs, or ever will,
except for this one guy with the scarred hands and feet. (He got
those scars passing the checkride.)

Here's the deal, though - the DE gives you a total waiver from the PTS
if you let that guy endorse your logbook - which he does in his own
blood. All you have to do is ask.


Corrie