Repost for PB

Sorry, if you had already time and "desire" to read my reply...not that it is so important...but the thread happens to be way "down under"...and my reply, for technical reasons not known to me didn't show in the Homepage-frontside under the latest posts...for what it may be worth, here the reposting:Re: "through" a verb? (confused...)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ Replies to this Post ] [ Post a Reply ] [ Generation eXers Board ] [ exFamily.org Home ]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Farmer on February 10, 2008 at 13:47:53

In Reply to: Re: "through" a verb? (confused...) posted by Perry on February 04, 2008 at 14:19:28:

I answer first to the "easy"/fun subject...Photography...the beauty of digital photography indeed is, that you can select the best shots even on the scene so to speek...I resisted all that for very long, being rather the manual SLR-"freak", with the consequence, that I see my "waste", when the dia-films are developed.

In the beginning it was also a cost/resolution-problem...nowadays the costs become more bearable...Some few brands like Nikon make it possible to use the old, very good, manually-focussed lenses...not everybody has the funds to start from scratch...although nowadays few zooms cover about all.I guess every now and then I'll visit your "dangerous" website just for that reason even ; ) or more...that's the bait ; )

The other subjects: first of you're very right, I hardly know anything of Dawkins first hand, besides the few interviews magazines had with him.So it's an impression I have...The comment I made about Biology is though pretty near the truth.My sister has a M.A. in Biology, my brother in law a PhD. in physics.Both seem to be agnostics, but as far as the learning skills during the studies are concerned, I have far more respect for my brother in law, as it is quite challenging.If you had to apply all the knowledge of mechanics/physics in general and chemistry to biology, to "copy HIS (sorry) lines", then of course Biology would be the most
complicated field of studies...but it isn't really attempted too much...although more and more (biophysics/biochemistrywith some math of biology)...I read the biographies of a good many (believing/unbelieving)Professors in Biology, and quite a few had first their masters and doctorates in Physics etc.....I was just venting, that you need to know a whole lot and I figure, by the time you know very much, you kind of are in awe, that all that should have happened "by accident"....choice is ours...

I didn't want to do Dawkins injustice, but all I heard in an interview is, that both he and I think Gould was his name, were not anymore in research themselves, that means in a laboratory etc....I figure, at a desk you can construe about any theory and since creation, sorry big bang, is some/long time past and a one time thing,not reproduceable under laboratory conditions (requirement for a good many theories), it's almost a "no/little"-risk theory, as it is nowadays difficult to say, it couldn't have happened that way with 100% surety...however, Perry, even evolutionists at least admit, that the probability is really veeeeery tiny, that one wonders, why people believe in that probability, in this tiniest, tiniest fraction.

I don't and it seems a bit unfair to chide others
who can't help but ackowledge a master/creator...law...lawgiver of the universe.I recently came across some statements about the great unification formula and apparently some solutions are found, if the factor time got a totally new/different role altogether...

The red thread I see in many of your posts happens to be about the danger of religions altogether.I have no problem to say, that a good many problems, wars etc. started, were perpetrated in the name or with the help of religion.But if you consider, how man wants to reign, have power, rule and selfishly exploit the
goods of nature, then it becomes obvious, that
religion became means/help/tool for the end.

In German you have the saying that the end justifies the means...I'd say, that with a good many means you don't reach the end and peace by abuse & mistreatment is no lasting peace...the fundament is wrong.

A real Christian would compare the means with the example set in the Bible...if there are contradictions, he shouldn't follow/support...that's why I said elsewhere here, that it seems to be an oxymoron for me, a Christian in very high power.I don't get the ruling/lording over others from the Bible...Christians could get into a fix, as they are supposed to obey the powers which are...however if they are very evil, I think you should not cooperate etc.There have been grave mistakes made in history, but you shouldn't think, that Christians can be perfect while on earth (In the persecution by the Romans --- please acknowlege that phase also a bit more ---
some forsook their faith as the torture became unbearable,that seems fairly understandable, although there were other Christians, who didn't want to take those believers back in once the persecution was over)...however if there's very bad conduct shown by them, one could wonder how much they were Christians/believers or whether they understood the message or were instructed the right way.

Therefore you have IMO every right to criticise anything done wrong in the name of religion, my respect & agreement, however you shouldn't always go by the label to judge the contents...it could lead to heavy misjudgements