Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72025 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47190 Jan 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
All other science is based on beliefs, not fact about what happened billions of years ago, but what is believed happened,and most of the evolutionary stuff, that people must take by faith, is pretty much farther put then just.about any crazy religous stuff.
You should read more about what the scientific method is about. Science is based upon evidence, not beliefs.

Religion, on the other hand, is not based on evidence, at least not on the objectively measured and reproducible sort required to conduct science. Religion is based on faith. Faith by definition is the continued act of acceptance of an idea without evidence.

Its not a question so much of which box which enterprise should fit in. Its a question of which method is appropriate for each subject matter. The God concept, by nature, is not amenable to scientific method. Evolutionary and other historical processes, on the other hand, are.

Science can deepen ones religious faith. However, faith does little to contribute to the enterprise of science other than on a motivational level. Faith has nothing to offer on the substantial level due to its inability to meet the rules of evidence standard that is necessary to conduct science.

A religious person can be a scientist as long as they follow the scientific rules of inquiry.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47192 Jan 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem is that you keep posting articles from that pos rag.
I challenge you to debunk any of the articles from the science section.

You can start with that one.

Incidentally, that subject has been discussed on this forum before. One of the posters here has a son or daughter who is a microbiologist.

What are you worried about? That the UN will mandate these transplants as their first order of business?

Gtown71

United States

#47193 Jan 17, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
You should read more about what the scientific method is about. Science is based upon evidence, not beliefs.
Religion, on the other hand, is not based on evidence, at least not on the objectively measured and reproducible sort required to conduct science. Religion is based on faith. Faith by definition is the continued act of acceptance of an idea without evidence.
Its not a question so much of which box which enterprise should fit in. Its a question of which method is appropriate for each subject matter. The God concept, by nature, is not amenable to scientific method. Evolutionary and other historical processes, on the other hand, are.
Science can deepen ones religious faith. However, faith does little to contribute to the enterprise of science other than on a motivational level. Faith has nothing to offer on the substantial level due to its inability to meet the rules of evidence standard that is necessary to conduct science.
A religious person can be a scientist as long as they follow the scientific rules of inquiry.
I'm sure I'm biased becouse of my faith, if I'm not I don't have very much faith. We are all biased becouse of our beliefs.

There is only one thing since time began that has never been disproved (given enough time). That is the bible. Scientist say the earth is billions of years old. I believe they are wrong. One method they have used is radiocarbom 14 or 14 c, however you want to look at it. They claimed they could date the earth with this method at millions of years. It has been proven that 14 c is only accurate to thousands of years. It is funny to me that when one way gets disproved, then they (the scoentist) have to find a new way to try to disprove the bible. There is only one constant -the bible says what it says, never changing. It doesn't have to change. Science on the other hand seems to always change to fit the newest "scientists " theory.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#47200 Jan 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure I'm biased becouse of my faith, if I'm not I don't have very much faith. We are all biased becouse of our beliefs.
There is only one thing since time began that has never been disproved (given enough time). That is the bible. Scientist say the earth is billions of years old. I believe they are wrong. One method they have used is radiocarbom 14 or 14 c, however you want to look at it. They claimed they could date the earth with this method at millions of years. It has been proven that 14 c is only accurate to thousands of years. It is funny to me that when one way gets disproved, then they (the scoentist) have to find a new way to try to disprove the bible. There is only one constant -the bible says what it says, never changing. It doesn't have to change. Science on the other hand seems to always change to fit the newest "scientists " theory.
You missed out on middleschool?(I'm sorry but i do seriously not have a clue as to whether anyone in America still get's something resembling an education, and whether you have to be 21 before you may study physics, chemistry, geography and biology according to some sort of weird creationist school rule.)
C14 is reliable upto 50,000 years. That is the safe approach.
For anything older you take (a) different element(s) with another half-time. You combine all the findings, calculate several other factors in, to get to an estimate.
A christian named Wiens can be googles for a very good explanation.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#47201 Jan 17, 2013
The scientific method aims the undercut such bias due to it's inbuild self-correcting method.
And there is a distinction between believe and degrees of probability.
Faith or believe would just be hope with no evidence of a likely outcome.

Believe in a god would not be needed if one could proof god to exist. Something that exists does not need 'believing'. Or 'not believing'.
HughBe

Kingston, Jamaica

#47202 Jan 17, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed out on middleschool?(I'm sorry but i do seriously not have a clue as to whether anyone in America still get's something resembling an education, and whether you have to be 21 before you may study physics, chemistry, geography and biology according to some sort of weird creationist school rule.)
C14 is reliable upto 50,000 years. That is the safe approach.
For anything older you take (a) different element(s) with another half-time. You combine all the findings, calculate several other factors in, to get to an estimate.
A christian named Wiens can be googles for a very good explanation.
Maat---C14 is reliable upto 50,000 years

HughBe--- INCORRECT

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47203 Jan 17, 2013
HughBe wrote:
<quoted text>
Maat---C14 is reliable upto 50,000 years
HughBe--- INCORRECT
Radiocarbon dating (usually referred to as simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dati...

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47204 Jan 17, 2013
1
1.^ Plastino, W.; Kaihola, L.; Bartolomei, P.; Bella, F.(2001). "Cosmic Background Reduction In The Radiocarbon Measurement By Scintillation Spectrometry At The Underground Laboratory Of Gran Sasso". Radiocarbon 43 (2A): 157–161. https://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/ob... .

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47205 Jan 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure I'm biased becouse of my faith, if I'm not I don't have very much faith. We are all biased becouse of our beliefs.
There is only one thing since time began that has never been disproved (given enough time). That is the bible. Scientist say the earth is billions of years old. I believe they are wrong. One method they have used is radiocarbom 14 or 14 c, however you want to look at it. They claimed they could date the earth with this method at millions of years. It has been proven that 14 c is only accurate to thousands of years. It is funny to me that when one way gets disproved, then they (the scoentist) have to find a new way to try to disprove the bible. There is only one constant -the bible says what it says, never changing. It doesn't have to change. Science on the other hand seems to always change to fit the newest "scientists " theory.
With all due respect, did you ever take 7th grade science?

because your explanations of science are wrong.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#47206 Jan 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Problem is with you calling something a crazy theory, i dont believe any crazy theories not based on facts.
So, until you state otherwise, I'll take that as confirmation that you live in a constant state of anxiety, given all the CRAZY conspiracy theories you believe in.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#47207 Jan 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it is right that most religions are taught to the people who are in them.
For instance many many christians can quote lots of scripture, but if ask what the hope is within them, they will say something like, when they were baptized, or how many good things they have done,or usually how long and what church they attend.
Many know alot "about " a God they do not know.
If a person would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that atleaat once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
Writes someone else, not me clearly, but it is true.
I truly believe with all that is within me, that God created the earth and all we can see, and much more we can't.
I'm not smart enough to debate evolution, and don't have to be. A person can tangle up anyone in his own backyard, for sure when one is very common, and the other very knowledgable about a subject.
Plus evolution has many many different paths, and many 50 and 100 dollar words, but when it is all said and done it is just a theory, and not solid evidence of anything.
Many times people see what they want to see, and don't look at other ideas.
I have no problem seeing any other material or any other religious ideas.
I am solid on what I believe to be truth,but I do have a personal relationship with God, and not just something my mom told me, or raised me in.-
There are some pretty far out there ideas, like there is no objects in the world, only vibrations of energy and relationships. But saying there is a God and heaven is also far out there.
I believe God and science goes hand in hand, but I don't have to make God fit into the science "box " either. Yet true science fits perfect in Gods box.
All other science is based on beliefs, not fact about what happened billions of years ago, but what is believed happened,and most of the evolutionary stuff, that people must take by faith, is pretty much farther put then just.about any crazy religous stuff.
You lack understanding as to what is a scientific theory and the evidence required to call something a theory in science. Scientists use the term "theory" differently than laypeople do and have much more stringent requirements for calling it as such. So, saying that evolution "is just a theory" doesn't cut it. If you really understood evolutionary biology, you would most likely accept it and not accuse people of trying to "bamboozle" you. You need to take the initiative to learn the things you do not understand before criticizing them and dismissing them out of hand. If the god you believe in exists, and evolution was his mechanism for providing for the diversity of life, then what do you suppose he would think of your intellectual laziness?
Gtown71

United States

#47208 Jan 17, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect, did you ever take 7th grade science?
because your explanations of science are wrong.
I'm not sure? Lol
Oh yea -mr. Neil
A person could spend his life in science, and not give the "correct " answer.
This is why many schools are making a way for creation to be taught.

I'm not sure it is a great idea to teach either, becouse of the different beliefs, but if a group wanted to try and teach something other, then.1+1= 2

It is so solid and just plain known that if you have one thing and add another thing you have two things.

Evolution is not so solid, as a matter of fact, only micro evolution is solid.
Which is if you take a big dog and breed it with a small dog -you get a different dog, but you still get a dog.

There are those who could run circles around the best on science, but have came to a place where they no longer believe in evolution as the way we became to be. They now believe in a creator.

Yet you would dismiss what they had to say.

They only thing I wrote that may be wrong about science is how it continues to try and disprove the bible (and for many it has), but it still has not.

You might say scientist are not out to disprove anything, but just go where the facts lead.
Truly though, you must know that some, if not many scientist try to disprove the bible.

Maybe in a easy to grasp way -you can tell me how we all came to be?
Voluntarist

United States

#47209 Jan 17, 2013
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
So, until you state otherwise, I'll take that as confirmation that you live in a constant state of anxiety, given all the CRAZY conspiracy theories you believe in.
Any theory i believe in is based on facts.
I dont believe in magic bullets do you?

Yes or no, has the us government ever lied to the american people?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#47210 Jan 17, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect, did you ever take 7th grade science?
because your explanations of science are wrong.
Frijoles and Matt - thanks for finally jumping in. I thought I was on a lone crusade to educate the unenlightened ;-)

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#47211 Jan 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure? Lol
Oh yea -mr. Neil
A person could spend his life in science, and not give the "correct " answer.
This is why many schools are making a way for creation to be taught.
I'm not sure it is a great idea to teach either, becouse of the different beliefs, but if a group wanted to try and teach something other, then.1+1= 2
It is so solid and just plain known that if you have one thing and add another thing you have two things.
Evolution is not so solid, as a matter of fact, only micro evolution is solid.
Which is if you take a big dog and breed it with a small dog -you get a different dog, but you still get a dog.
There are those who could run circles around the best on science, but have came to a place where they no longer believe in evolution as the way we became to be. They now believe in a creator.
Yet you would dismiss what they had to say.
They only thing I wrote that may be wrong about science is how it continues to try and disprove the bible (and for many it has), but it still has not.
You might say scientist are not out to disprove anything, but just go where the facts lead.
Truly though, you must know that some, if not many scientist try to disprove the bible.
Maybe in a easy to grasp way -you can tell me how we all came to be?
Only in your warped, biased mind are scientists out to disprove the bible. Most don't give a rats a$$ about the bible. Scientists are driven primarily by a desire to learn how things works. The fact that their findings often times contradict a literal interpretation of the bible is an I unintended consequence of following where the evidence leads.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#47212 Jan 17, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Any theory i believe in is based on facts.
I dont believe in magic bullets do you?
Yes or no, has the us government ever lied to the american people?
Have you tried meditation for your anxieties. I heard chamomile tea can be quite relaxing as we'll.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47213 Jan 17, 2013
Gtown71 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure? Lol
Oh yea -mr. Neil
A person could spend his life in science, and not give the "correct " answer.
This is why many schools are making a way for creation to be taught.
You still sound like you have no understanding of what science is, or how science works.

I'll give it a try.

Science does not work with the notion of "correct" - it looks at competing explanations and selects the best (i.e. most likely) based on an analysis of data (i.e. evidence) and than couches their conclusions in terms of probibility (i.e. estimates how likely their explanation fits the data).

In science one is not only always seeking data driven explanations, but refining those explanations. Its the "refining process" that you are alluding to when you say that science is always contradicting itself, or that science is correcting itself.

Its not an either/or. Its a question of best, with a statistical qualification.

Bible thumpers who grow up with rigid either/or categorical modes of thinking have a problem with this notion. They tend to be hung up on binary categories - correct/wrong, with the bible as the process to provde the standard, not data driven analytical analysis

For Creationism to be a valid scientific construct, it should be 1) data driven,
2) hypothesis tested, and
3) statistically qualified.

As far as I am aware, in the broad sense, Creationism has never been able to withstand these processes. Therefore, Creationism is an ideology, not a scientific discipline.

If you want to teach ideology(religion) along side with science in schools, than that is certainly your right in a private school. But dont call Creationism science, because it isnt. Intelligent Design is not science, it is junk science, for the reasons expounded above in the previous paragraph.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47214 Jan 17, 2013
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Frijoles and Matt - thanks for finally jumping in. I thought I was on a lone crusade to educate the unenlightened ;-)
Non un-enlightened, just not fully educated.

As you know, I see no contradiction between being a person of faith, and performing/following science. You just have to recognize where the boundaries of each approach lie.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47215 Jan 17, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Dating the Earth

The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old.[4]....

.....Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element, the age of the rock can be calculated.[19]

Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay.[19] If the rock becomes molten, as happens in Earth's mantle, such nonradioactive end products typically escape or are redistributed.[19] Thus the age of the oldest terrestrial rock gives a minimum for the age of Earth assuming that a rock cannot have been in existence for longer than Earth itself....

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#47216 Jan 17, 2013
From HUGHBES own local press:

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/business/Try-s...

Try some elephant dung coffee

Exotic brew goes for US$50 a pop

TRIANGLE, Thailand - IN the lush hills of northern Thailand, a herd of 20 elephants is helping to excrete some of the world's most expensive coffee.

Trumpeted as earthy in flavour and smooth on the palate, the exotic new brew is made from beans eaten by Thai elephants and plucked a day later from their dung. A gut reaction inside the elephant creates what its founder calls the coffee's unique taste....

....And, his artisinal process is labour intensive. He uses pure Arabica beans hand-picked by hill-tribe women from a small mountain estate. Once the elephants do their business, the wives of elephant mahouts collect the dung, break it open and pick out the coffee. After a thorough washing, the coffee cherries are processed to extract the beans, which are then brought to a gourmet roaster in Bangkok.

Inevitably, the elephant coffee has become the butt of jokes. Dinkin shared his favourites: Crap-accino. Good to the last dropping. Elephant poop coffee.

As far away as Hollywood, even Jay Leno has taken cracks.

"Here's my question," Leno quipped recently. "Who is the first person that saw a bunch of coffee beans and a pile of elephant dung and said, "You know, if I ground those up and drank it, I'll bet that would be delicious."

Jokes aside, people are drinking it. Black Ivory's maiden batch of 70 kilogrammes has sold out. Dinkin hopes to crank out six times that amount in 2013, catering to a customer he sees as relatively affluent, open-minded and adventurous with a desire to tell a good story.

----------
HUGHBE - I sense a good business opportunity here for you. Elephants are expensive to maintain. You could be cheaper.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Yeah 1,375,774
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Buster Steinbeizer 213,304
last post wins! (Dec '10) 2 hr honeymylove 1,980
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr PEllen 8,126
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr PEllen 6,008
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 2 hr PEllen 2,277
Song Title Game (Dec '11) 3 hr Tami 1,232
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 10 hr In Summation 101,762
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages