Re: Gaia - was Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
Hello Hoagy From my view you gentlemen made some excellent comments! I've attempted a comment below although may easily be considered trivial in pursuit and not worth considering. Keith and Curtis wrote: Hi Curtis I dunno. I've always looked at the whole thing like: Religion: the study of WHO WHY the universe was created. Science: the study of HOW the universe was created. I mean, this God could of waved his (rather big) hands and used the manufacturing process of the big bang to get the job done. For example. I'm quite happy with that idea, it doesn't preclude anything. What I'm getting at is that... Science Religion .. they don't have to conflict with one another. snip Have you seen this? I think he has a point. http://schumachercollege.gn.apc.org/articles/stephan.htm From Gaia Theory to Deep Ecology, by Stephan Harding Stephan Harding, who teaches at Schumacher College, and is currently co-teacher with Professor Brian Goodwin of the new one-year taught MSc in Holistic Science, discusses how a scientific understanding of our planet as a living whole can lead to a deeper relationship with nature. snip My friend from college used to always say... RELIGION ... IS SEARCHING FOR GOD SCIENCE ... IS SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH AND IF THE TRUTH IS GOD THEN THE TWO WILL FIND THE SAME THING. This is such a cool discussion group!! Good job Keith!! :) I think so too - but it's you guys who make it cool. For which thanks! Regards Keith Curtis Thank you Curtis and Keith for this interesting link! http://schumachercollege.gn.apc.org/articles/stephan.htm From Gaia Theory to Deep Ecology, by Stephan Harding In Daisyworld it got me to thinking about white and black daisies in which black daisy's adjusted first -- in time allowing white daisy's to adapt as the environment warmed. I'm guessing, so please help me understand, the warmth of the atmosphere probably varied radically till conditions stabilized kind of like a bouncing ball effected by gravity. What I visualize is black daisies established first by heat absorption till the heat island affect helped white daisies catch on but in-between time the black majority may have suffered heat exhaustion and dehydration will whites multiplied thus reflecting heat via cooling their surroundings with reduced evaporation allowing generations of blacks and whites to eventually balance these cycles out -- in time. This kind of relates to a Public Broadcasting Service tv program called Nova Fire Wars about the North Americas gradual drought and increasing fire conditions along the east and west mountain ranges and permafrost possibly affected by a one degree variation of annual mean temperature IF fires where to hit these areas releasing tons of carbon dioxide, methane and carbon monoxide adding to the warming effect. It also mentioned this causation could radically increase warming trends that could effect our daisy's so im attempting meagerly to seek knowledge to gain understanding from those wiser in the ways of the world and how it might affect us. Thanks In Advance. MH You might find Lovelock's book interesting. I don't agree with some of his thinking - I reckon he's a bit too optimistic that Gaia can happily adjust to whatever abuse we chuck at it, and he has a touching faith in technology - but it's well worth a read. There's also a lot he doesn't seem to be aware of, eg that some of the ground he thinks is new is already well-trodden in other disciplines - the world mind is a very old idea (any tribal animist knows that!). Still, this is an interesting view of it. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth by James Lovelock, Oxford, 1979, ISBN 0192862189 This later one has more about Daisyworld: The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of Our Living Earth, by J. E. Lovelock, W.W. Norton, ISBN 0393312399 Google will find you lots about Daisyworld. You might also find Pierre Teilhard de Chardin interesting - Gaia and more, and sod teleology. Especially The Human Phenomenon (or The Phenomenon of Man, whichever). Regards Keith Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Gaia - was Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
From my view you gentlemen made some excellent comments! I've attempted a comment below although may easily be considered trivial in pursuit and not worth considering. Keith and Curtis wrote: Hi Curtis I dunno. I've always looked at the whole thing like: Religion: the study of WHO WHY the universe was created. Science: the study of HOW the universe was created. I mean, this God could of waved his (rather big) hands and used the manufacturing process of the big bang to get the job done. For example. I'm quite happy with that idea, it doesn't preclude anything. What I'm getting at is that... Science Religion .. they don't have to conflict with one another. snip Have you seen this? I think he has a point. http://schumachercollege.gn.apc.org/articles/stephan.htm From Gaia Theory to Deep Ecology, by Stephan Harding Stephan Harding, who teaches at Schumacher College, and is currently co-teacher with Professor Brian Goodwin of the new one-year taught MSc in Holistic Science, discusses how a scientific understanding of our planet as a living whole can lead to a deeper relationship with nature. snip My friend from college used to always say... RELIGION ... IS SEARCHING FOR GOD SCIENCE ... IS SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH AND IF THE TRUTH IS GOD THEN THE TWO WILL FIND THE SAME THING. This is such a cool discussion group!! Good job Keith!! :) I think so too - but it's you guys who make it cool. For which thanks! Regards Keith Curtis Thank you Curtis and Keith for this interesting link! http://schumachercollege.gn.apc.org/articles/stephan.htm From Gaia Theory to Deep Ecology, by Stephan Harding In Daisyworld it got me to thinking about white and black daisies in which black daisy's adjusted first -- in time allowing white daisy's to adapt as the environment warmed. I'm guessing, so please help me understand, the warmth of the atmosphere probably varied radically till conditions stabilized kind of like a bouncing ball effected by gravity. What I visualize is black daisies established first by heat absorption till the heat island affect helped white daisies catch on but in-between time the black majority may have suffered heat exhaustion and dehydration will whites multiplied thus reflecting heat via cooling their surroundings with reduced evaporation allowing generations of blacks and whites to eventually balance these cycles out -- in time. This kind of relates to a Public Broadcasting Service tv program called Nova Fire Wars about the North Americas gradual drought and increasing fire conditions along the east and west mountain ranges and permafrost possibly affected by a one degree variation of annual mean temperature IF fires where to hit these areas releasing tons of carbon dioxide, methane and carbon monoxide adding to the warming effect. It also mentioned this causation could radically increase warming trends that could effect our daisy's so im attempting meagerly to seek knowledge to gain understanding from those wiser in the ways of the world and how it might affect us. Thanks In Advance. MH Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
I tried to snip without removing too much essential content. Apologies to either Keith or Harmon if I have failed But I thought that the Lord's work WAS to love thy neighbor meaning: Love: and rebuild your neighbor's house. Love: respect and not push you point. Or try to convert. Love: Demonstrate good works ... that he may see your good works ... AND DESIRE IT FOR HIMSELF. Or beg for it ... as Harmon would put it. Looks like there's alot of people out there that talk and talk and talk. Yet never reading the actual rules ... and seeking to live it out themselves. Like commanding someone not to force people ... while holding a shotgun to his head. Curtis Keith Addison wrote: It's quite possible to leave the dogma at home. Christian groups (for instance) and missionaries do some of the best work in Third World rural development, and generally they work to improve local conditions, not to score up converts, --snip- ...and the Bible simply never comes into it. They do the Lord's work, but without pushing the Lord's message. ---to which the Harmon Seaver replied- OTOH, having been involved in christian missionary work, ---snip I can truthfully testify that in many cases the message is pushed pretty hard. Of those I know today, some are involved in actual material work, such as rebuilding Bosnia and Kosovo (and the entrance of christian missionaries in islamic areas speaks for itself, I think), but the majority are just there to preach and convert, of the ones I know at least. --snip- The religions which I find most objectionable are those that proselytize --snip- ...even to the point of killing and torturing those who disagree with them. Or just imprisoning them as we see here in the US. One would think that if a religion had any real value, it would be so evident in the lives of it's followers that people would beg them to learn about it. Harmon Seaver = Join the Revolution! http://thincnet.com/revolution9/downline/vdownline.html?9107 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
I was pleased to hear of inter faith based stewardship of the environment. This example is more US bible based but there are others on the web if you care to share -- consensus willing GLOBAL WARMING: A RELIGIOUS ISSUE Questions and Answers about Science, Public Policy, and Faith http://www.webofcreation.org/ncc/climatechange/faith.html - What is global warming and how does it relate to climate? Climate and warming - What do scientists know about global warming, its causes and effects? - What do scientists project about future warming and its effects? - Why is global warming a religious issue? Psalm 24 tells us and - What has happened about global warming in international diplomacy? UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992-3, Kyoto, USA, European Union (EU), President Bush. - Can the Kyoto Protocol work if the developing countries don't participate? - What is happening in national policy and politics? President Bush and US Congress. The Global Climate Coalition, a lobby for certain coal, oil, and auto interests. - What are the alternatives to our present energy system? - Will complying with the Kyoto Protocol cost jobs and hurt the economy? National Academy of Sciences, Eight Nobel economists and 2,400 of their colleagues concluded... - Also see these websites - What can you do? Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
Hello m65 On Mon, 6 May 2002 03:53:14 +0900, you wrote: Kris Book wrote: If you guys can't stop discussing religion, at least change the subject line so that those who are willing to follow the rules can simply delete these off topic posts. What rules? One non-rule I keep repeating is that nothing's off-topic in the big wide wonderful world of biofuels, at least not on this list with its diverse and global membership. ... Anyway, no rules maybe, but as Harmon pointed out there was a ruling recently, a different matter: NO MORE RELIGION! Please all take note. Keith Addison Moderator-of-sorts $.02: A good discussion group (and this is one, why have I been wasting all my energies on yahoo-HIPC all these years?) is invariably going to make connections and dig deeper, Yes it will, and should be allowed to, IMO. though the nominative discussion group topic may be well-defined and compartmentalized. ... which it isn't, in this case, for just that reason. If debating some of the basic science of energy is very much on-topic, then I don't see any way to avoid bringing up philosophy and religion. You're quite right, and I was aware of the contradiction in my own posts. I may personally look down upon clinging to the idea that the Bible (or some other religious thought) is pertinent to cosmology physics discussions in 21st century society, but others may not. There's a blurred area between physics and metaphysics where it's hard to distinguish the two, and maybe foolish to try. Harmon talked of the physics of Tao, or is it the Tao of physics, and many physicists take that seriously. You can see why - they're different angles on the same thing, and when that thing is so slippery to grasp, it helps to consider every angle you can. Dreams are not exactly rational, the stuff of Jungian psychology, the spirit, and perhaps metaphysics, but Niels Bohr's famous model of the atom came to him in a dream in which he was sitting on the sun with all the planets whizzing around on strings. Not the only such case. I think any strict division here would be a false one, and a subtraction. The problem seems to arise at one step removed, in the overlap between metaphysics and sectarian religion, where seeking for truth becomes a futile argument over The Truth, a clash between opposing convictions. I think we all ought to try and avoid this. Nothing can be gained by it. I guess I can build a list of email filters, though that is a double-edged sword. Indeed. I suppose a line that can be drawn here is to point out that if sometimes the science of energy is going to come up, that the Bible and other religious texts are discredited as good sources of scientific physics thinking, and so are generally not pertinent on a specific scientific level. But there is no hope of convincing too many others of that, or of getting them to respect that, so I wouldn't bother to try personally. I'd just ignore them for the most part. But it quite quickly gets right out of hand. Further, there are other nuances to such matters, such as the philosophic and psychological issues that come up on political strategizing, as well as in discussing the issues around science and its history. Since religion is a subset of philosophy (at least as I see it) I don't see a quick easy to way to delienate here. No. It has to be case by case, I guess. Anyway, this is a great discussion group, though obviously I am not up to the hardcore chemistry discussion. I think most of us aren't, but some of us are, and they don't seem to mind if the rest of us sit at their feet. We can all learn from each other - except where overheated arguments start to form a vortex that distorts healthy discussion. I'd rather have it that folks go over the line, since it's hard to find integrated thinking or attempts at it, and then I can just filter out what I don't want to respond to. But that's just my $.02 and I haven't been here that long. Very good deal for only 2 cents, you sell yourself short. :-) I'm very glad you like the group. You've been here a while, and you've contributed much, it's as much your group as anybody else's. I think most people are pretty sensible, they know how to behave, they moderate themselves, they draw their own line, and that's usually good enough, and why I don't want to lay down any rules. I'd much rather have it get out of hand now and then than constrict the thing to prevent transgressions and stifle discussion in the doing. Have to do something though. So let's try this then: NO RELIGIOUS WARS! By order. (Think that'll work, for now?) Regards Keith Addison Slightly baffled moderator Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
I dunno. I've always looked at the whole thing like: Religion: the study of WHO WHY the universe was created. Science: the study of HOW the universe was created. I mean, this God could of waved his (rather big) hands and used the manufacturing process of the big bang to get the job done. For example. What I'm getting at is that... Science Religion .. they don't have to conflict with one another. My friend from college used to always say... RELIGION ... IS SEARCHING FOR GOD SCIENCE ... IS SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH AND IF THE TRUTH IS GOD THEN THE TWO WILL FIND THE SAME THING. This is such a cool discussion group!! Good job Keith!! :) Curtis If debating some of the basic science of energy is very much on-topic, then I don't see any way to avoid bringing up philosophy and religion. You're quite right, and I was aware of the contradiction in my own posts. I may personally look down upon clinging to the idea that the Bible (or some other religious thought) is pertinent to cosmology physics discussions in 21st century society, but others may not. There's a blurred area between physics and metaphysics where it's hard to distinguish the two, and maybe foolish to try. Harmon talked of the physics of Tao, or is it the Tao of physics, and many physicists take that seriously. You can see why - they're different angles on the same thing, and when that thing is so slippery to grasp, it helps to consider every angle you can. Dreams are not exactly rational, the stuff of Jungian psychology, the spirit, and perhaps metaphysics, but Niels Bohr's famous model of the atom came to him in a dream in which he was sitting on the sun with all the planets whizzing around on strings. Not the only such case. I think any strict division here would be a false one, and a subtraction. The problem seems to arise at one step removed, in the overlap between metaphysics and sectarian religion, where seeking for truth becomes a futile argument over The Truth, a clash between opposing convictions. I think we all ought to try and avoid this. Nothing can be gained by it. I guess I can build a list of email filters, though that is a double-edged sword. Indeed. I suppose a line that can be drawn here is to point out that if sometimes the science of energy is going to come up, that the Bible and other religious texts are discredited as good sources of scientific physics thinking, and so are generally not pertinent on a specific scientific level. But there is no hope of convincing too many others of that, or of getting them to respect that, so I wouldn't bother to try personally. I'd just ignore them for the most part. But it quite quickly gets right out of hand. Further, there are other nuances to such matters, such as the philosophic and psychological issues that come up on political strategizing, as well as in discussing the issues around science and its history. Since religion is a subset of philosophy (at least as I see it) I don't see a quick easy to way to delienate here. No. It has to be case by case, I guess. Anyway, this is a great discussion group, though obviously I am not up to the hardcore chemistry discussion. I think most of us aren't, but some of us are, and they don't seem to mind if the rest of us sit at their feet. We can all learn from each other - except where overheated arguments start to form a vortex that distorts healthy discussion. I'd rather have it that folks go over the line, since it's hard to find integrated thinking or attempts at it, and then I can just filter out what I don't want to respond to. But that's just my $.02 and I haven't been here that long. Very good deal for only 2 cents, you sell yourself short. :-) I'm very glad you like the group. You've been here a while, and you've contributed much, it's as much your group as anybody else's. I think most people are pretty sensible, they know how to behave, they moderate themselves, they draw their own line, and that's usually good enough, and why I don't want to lay down any rules. I'd much rather have it get out of hand now and then than constrict the thing to prevent transgressions and stifle discussion in the doing. Have to do something though. So let's try this then: NO RELIGIOUS WARS! By order. (Think that'll work, for now?) Regards Keith Addison Slightly baffled moderator = Join the Revolution! http://thincnet.com/revolution9/downline/vdownline.html?9107 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
I dunno. I've always looked at the whole thing like: Religion: the study of WHO WHY the universe was created. Science: the study of HOW the universe was created. I mean, this God could of waved his (rather big) hands and used the manufacturing process of the big bang to get the job done. For example. What I'm getting at is that... Science Religion .. they don't have to conflict with one another. My friend from college used to always say... RELIGION ... IS SEARCHING FOR GOD SCIENCE ... IS SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH AND IF THE TRUTH IS GOD THEN THE TWO WILL FIND THE SAME THING. This is such a cool discussion group!! Good job Keith!! :) Curtis If debating some of the basic science of energy is very much on-topic, then I don't see any way to avoid bringing up philosophy and religion. You're quite right, and I was aware of the contradiction in my own posts. I may personally look down upon clinging to the idea that the Bible (or some other religious thought) is pertinent to cosmology physics discussions in 21st century society, but others may not. There's a blurred area between physics and metaphysics where it's hard to distinguish the two, and maybe foolish to try. Harmon talked of the physics of Tao, or is it the Tao of physics, and many physicists take that seriously. You can see why - they're different angles on the same thing, and when that thing is so slippery to grasp, it helps to consider every angle you can. Dreams are not exactly rational, the stuff of Jungian psychology, the spirit, and perhaps metaphysics, but Niels Bohr's famous model of the atom came to him in a dream in which he was sitting on the sun with all the planets whizzing around on strings. Not the only such case. I think any strict division here would be a false one, and a subtraction. The problem seems to arise at one step removed, in the overlap between metaphysics and sectarian religion, where seeking for truth becomes a futile argument over The Truth, a clash between opposing convictions. I think we all ought to try and avoid this. Nothing can be gained by it. I guess I can build a list of email filters, though that is a double-edged sword. Indeed. I suppose a line that can be drawn here is to point out that if sometimes the science of energy is going to come up, that the Bible and other religious texts are discredited as good sources of scientific physics thinking, and so are generally not pertinent on a specific scientific level. But there is no hope of convincing too many others of that, or of getting them to respect that, so I wouldn't bother to try personally. I'd just ignore them for the most part. But it quite quickly gets right out of hand. Further, there are other nuances to such matters, such as the philosophic and psychological issues that come up on political strategizing, as well as in discussing the issues around science and its history. Since religion is a subset of philosophy (at least as I see it) I don't see a quick easy to way to delienate here. No. It has to be case by case, I guess. Anyway, this is a great discussion group, though obviously I am not up to the hardcore chemistry discussion. I think most of us aren't, but some of us are, and they don't seem to mind if the rest of us sit at their feet. We can all learn from each other - except where overheated arguments start to form a vortex that distorts healthy discussion. I'd rather have it that folks go over the line, since it's hard to find integrated thinking or attempts at it, and then I can just filter out what I don't want to respond to. But that's just my $.02 and I haven't been here that long. Very good deal for only 2 cents, you sell yourself short. :-) I'm very glad you like the group. You've been here a while, and you've contributed much, it's as much your group as anybody else's. I think most people are pretty sensible, they know how to behave, they moderate themselves, they draw their own line, and that's usually good enough, and why I don't want to lay down any rules. I'd much rather have it get out of hand now and then than constrict the thing to prevent transgressions and stifle discussion in the doing. Have to do something though. So let's try this then: NO RELIGIOUS WARS! By order. (Think that'll work, for now?) Regards Keith Addison Slightly baffled moderator = Join the Revolution! http://thincnet.com/revolution9/downline/vdownline.html?9107 __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
Have to do something though. So let's try this then: NO RELIGIOUS WARS! By order. (Think that'll work, for now?) An improvement, perhaps. Regards Keith Addison Slightly baffled moderator Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
Kris Book wrote: If you guys can't stop discussing religion, at least change the subject line so that those who are willing to follow the rules can simply delete these off topic posts. What rules? One non-rule I keep repeating is that nothing's off-topic in the big wide wonderful world of biofuels, at least not on this list with its diverse and global membership. Posts may be uninteresting to individual members, sure, but not necessarily off-topic. Even where it definitely goes off any conceivable topic, it quite often turns up something on-topic that might not otherwise have emerged. But you're right about changing the subject lines, good netiquette. We get occasional reminders but not often enough, thankyou. Weird though, off-topic religion is causing a fuss on several different lists right now, nothing to do with biofuels. Things happen in strange patterns. Or maybe William Gibson's right and the Internet's infested with a bunch of unruly Haitian bush gods with an agenda all their own. Anyway, no rules maybe, but as Harmon pointed out there was a ruling recently, a different matter: NO MORE RELIGION! Please all take note. Keith Addison Moderator-of-sorts --- Harmon Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 09:10:47AM -0600, kirk wrote: A Moslem friend of mine sent me a cd with a bunch of video presentations refuting Darwin etc and talking about the big bang. I think most people believe Moslems believe something strange. As a Christian I found little to disagree with. The snip below from Harun Yahya, a Moslem evangelist, is a representative sample. The big bang needs to be seen in its entirety as there are some fascinating aspects. The velocity of the bang if altered even 1% would result in a mostly empty night sky and so on. The main difference I see between Islam and Christianity is they don't know who Jesus is. Beyond that the similarities are greater than the differences. It's pretty interesting to take a really close look at the origins of both Islam and Mormonism -- both religions were started by con men who made their way in life by bilking people before they became enlightened. Joseph Smith even did time for it. Lots of other parallels. But I thought we were done with the religion/biofuels thread? -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
On Mon, 6 May 2002 03:53:14 +0900, you wrote: Kris Book wrote: If you guys can't stop discussing religion, at least change the subject line so that those who are willing to follow the rules can simply delete these off topic posts. What rules? One non-rule I keep repeating is that nothing's off-topic in the big wide wonderful world of biofuels, at least not on this list with its diverse and global membership. ... Anyway, no rules maybe, but as Harmon pointed out there was a ruling recently, a different matter: NO MORE RELIGION! Please all take note. Keith Addison Moderator-of-sorts $.02: A good discussion group (and this is one, why have I been wasting all my energies on yahoo-HIPC all these years?) is invariably going to make connections and dig deeper, though the nominative discussion group topic may be well-defined and compartmentalized. If debating some of the basic science of energy is very much on-topic, then I don't see any way to avoid bringing up philosophy and religion. I may personally look down upon clinging to the idea that the Bible (or some other religious thought) is pertinent to cosmology physics discussions in 21st century society, but others may not. I guess I can build a list of email filters, though that is a double-edged sword. I suppose a line that can be drawn here is to point out that if sometimes the science of energy is going to come up, that the Bible and other religious texts are discredited as good sources of scientific physics thinking, and so are generally not pertinent on a specific scientific level. But there is no hope of convincing too many others of that, or of getting them to respect that, so I wouldn't bother to try personally. I'd just ignore them for the most part. Further, there are other nuances to such matters, such as the philosophic and psychological issues that come up on political strategizing, as well as in discussing the issues around science and its history. Since religion is a subset of philosophy (at least as I see it) I don't see a quick easy to way to delienate here. Anyway, this is a great discussion group, though obviously I am not up to the hardcore chemistry discussion. I'd rather have it that folks go over the line, since it's hard to find integrated thinking or attempts at it, and then I can just filter out what I don't want to respond to. But that's just my $.02 and I haven't been here that long. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Religion - was [biofuel] More free energy (maybe)
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Further, there are other nuances to such matters, such as the philosophic and psychological issues that come up on political strategizing, as well as in discussing the issues around science and its history. Since religion is a subset of philosophy (at least as I see it) I don't see a quick easy to way to delienate here. Anyway, this is a great discussion group, though obviously I am not up to the hardcore chemistry discussion. I'd rather have it that folks go over the line, since it's hard to find integrated thinking or attempts at it, and then I can just filter out what I don't want to respond to. But that's just my $.02 and I haven't been here that long. I tend to agree with the need for Political strategizing. We can only progress to a certain level,(commercial production) before poltics will rear it's head. That is a reality we do need to deal with. Some of us are at different levels of progress in our interests. Many have not reached the level where Politics kick in. Some may never reach that level, if they intend to keep it as a hobby in the backyard. Motie Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-- Buy Stock for $4 and no minimums. FREE Money 2002. http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/FGYolB/TM -~- Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send quot;unsubscribequot; messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
