BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 07:19 PM

Well, if it was a "he" egg seems like that could present a problem. Then there would be no chickens. Back to bio 101 for you dear Guest ibo.    Either that or typing school.   

      The chicken, however, crossed the road to avoid the Kosher butcher and ran into the Traif butcher---and that was the end of the chicken. Which is why people have learned to be middle of the roaders

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,ibo
Date: 28 Sep 06 - 06:12 PM

What came first,the chicken or he egg?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 08:14 PM

Sounds like you have just give the finale to this discussion---well done and, hopefully, no codas.    We have beaten it to death---and if it is animal---then a Kosher death.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 08:10 PM

This has been a very interesting and intellectually stimulating thread. It was very fascinating to see the give and take between the regulars here at Mudcat and the guests from the Orthodox Jewish community who came here largely by way of a Google search on the Monsey chickens. I would like to congratulate all the participants for conducting this debate on a very high and courteous level.

                                                SOL

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 03:38 PM

Well damn Wolfie.....This seems to explain why my church gets such little respect! The First Unorthodox and Mainly Irreverent Church of Our Lady of No Redeeming Social Value and Tongue-Talking Mohunkers seemed so apt and fitting but now I see the error of our ways. I think this is Bill's fault.............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 03:17 PM

*musing on the concept of "orthodox Pantheist"*

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Wolfgang
Date: 27 Sep 06 - 02:19 PM

Then why do so many tell us of entirely different colors and designs of wallpaper? Some even tell of paneling and others of bare studs........How do I know which to try? (Catspaw)

Just look at the names of the religions and you'll know: "orthodox" means having the correct belief. Like in orthography, where there is only one correct way of spelling. So only the orthodox religion can be the correct one.

The only thing that puzzles me is why different religions use the word "orthodox" to describe themselves.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 08:30 PM

Rabbi Sol----exactly right. Only the person within knows the color of the wallpaper. The person outside can only guess. Since there is no one inside --that we know of---unless you are going to believe in someone who came down here and said God was his dad, and told you the color of the paper---we are back at sqare one again.

So the larger question then is---Belief (faith--I use them interchangeably)or just saying---I don't know and could not care less about the color of wallpaper.   We can only know what we see and what we can process in our own minds---and I am not using the term "god given minds"---just minds--brains if you will. Let us say evolved minds over the centuries.

That said, on a lighter note. The Kosher Chickens. We have come a long way from the plucked little buggers vs the traif lil ole pullets to this deep and, frankly, repetitious discussion of theology.

I did learn, though, why ice floats. That is a plus.   And it is always good to learn a logical explanation.   By the way, ice floats and iron sinks--so, Grose please explain why steel boats stay afloat, why cement boats can float, why submarines can do both. I know the answer---and, it ain't god. Does the word science and/or physics ring a bell? The mind is an amzing thing---hate to waste it. We all got it genetically and then improved it through environment.

But---I am guess the Kosher Chickens are lonely since we have forgotten about them and the vendor has spend 3 yrs now in the Pen.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: robomatic
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 07:12 PM

As Will Rogers observed: "It's not what he doesn't know that bothers me, it's the things he does know that just ain't so!"

About any religious person who is 100% sure I recommend the motto:

"Frequently wrong, but never in doubt"

because we are not being presented with any reasonably logical argument, merely the certainty of the believer.

It is the hallmark of religion that precepts be devoutly believed in regardless of all argument to the contrary. This is what distinguishes science and the scientific approach from religion.


An example of this is the 'Rare Earth' concept used to make an argument that creationism is somehow scientific because look at the vast amount of things that have to happen just so our world exists. Unfortunately it is a debating device which sidesteps the fact that whatever the odds may really be, and they are not odds, they are guesses, we already know the world exists, so these requirements have been met.

The Rare Earth theory is dismissed by The Anthropic Principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:58 PM

OK, what the hell. I'll call you too, Pat.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:51 PM

Then why do so many tell us of entirely different colors and designs of wallpaper? Some even tell of paneling and others of bare studs........How do I know which to try? And if I like the blue rose pattern, can I be assured it's okay even though YOU have the roped vine pattern in off-white?

Once again, if I encounter a situation which seemingly has no answer, why must this be the hand of god at work? There is still more to be found out than we have found out so far. Some of us enjoy the journey and don't mind the not knowing. Why must we know right now? We might know more in the future but we don't know it all now. Should I attribute that which we don't know to god?

As Peter Himmelman sings, "The best kind of answer has no sound."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:36 PM

That's why we have cell phones. BillD, maybe I'll call you up when I get into the house.

I don't mean to be flip with your meaning, Rabbi Sol; it's just that your post was so CLEAR in its simplicity that it took me all the way for a moment! :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 06:06 PM

Religion and God are something that has to be experienced from within.
Someone who is standing outside of a house can not know with certainty what color the wallpaper is. He can only believe what the person who is standing inside tells him. The person who is inside sees with his own eyes and knows for certain what the color is.

                                                    SOL

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 05:43 PM

('Spaw...your lines reminded me of a dog I had once...very obedient dog. If you said "Sit up...or won't you?", he either sat up or he didn't. Being a dyslexic agnostic, I used to lie awake at night wondering if he was being like a God, and teasing me with contradictory information....)

well, THAT ought to thoroughly ruin the old joke!

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:56 PM

My point exactly Grose. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it is there.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:45 PM

ron, just because there are some folks who are color blind and can only see black and white doesn't mean there are no colors to the world. just because you can't see the certainty doesn't mean it ain't there.   To quote "every breath" attests

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:43 PM

Nope, your decision was based on faith.   While you find it to be a clear "probablity", there are others who cannot see it so strong. Hence, your decision was based on faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:40 PM

nope, my decision was based on certainty. I am however understanding that many don't have that certainty, and as you said, being uncertain does not mean we don't have to make decisions, decisions that might have moral, ethical and far-reaching implications. Now I understand that many want to "plow on" like Bill without having to come to some sort of consensus in their mind of the "probable". IMO, life is a very serious matter - we get 70, maybe 80 years to live it - we can live it just plowing on, or we can try to figure out how to maximize those years based on the best information we can get as to how we should make the big decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:36 PM

I still don't understand what the point you made has to do with our discussion.   Whoever said that we need to know 100% to make a decision? No one can see into the future to determine if their decision will be correct or not. I know I could get in my car and drive. I don't know if an airplane will suddenly land on my car while I'm driving. That doesn't stop me from getting behind the wheel.

No one is questioning your reason to believe in god. What led you to your decision could lead someone else to not decide.   At the same point, you probably understand that your decision is not based on a certainty either, if we go with the argument you have apparently been trying to raise.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:24 PM

ron: yes, he had the operation - even though the doctor said he wasn't sure it would work. based on the data, there was strong probability the operation would help. Hence, not knowing 100% was not excuse enough not to operate. that was the point.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:21 PM

"but what if he made no decision to operate just because he "didn't know". "

Grose, are you trying to play word games here? Just to win a debate? I have no clue what point you are trying to make - "That is exactly the type of reasoning I am saying is responsible. " ????

Making "no decision" is making a decision. He either has an operation or he doesn't. You can't be a little bit pregnant either.

Doctors make their recommendations based on the data that they have available. The doctor in Spaw's case made a decision. It is not a "leap of faith".

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:12 PM

Wherever it is or isn't we do or don't go Bill...I'll see you there or maybe not.

Great last post man................

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:08 PM

but, grose.." However, there are legal, ethical, mathematical dis,cussions of how to make a responsible choice."
That is precisely the sort of issue I was referring to when I said that 'we make decisions every day based on various assumptions'.

Any 'formula' you employ to determine 'reasonable' can be questioned. Why NOT accept the Taliban's formula? Or the Nicene Creed? Or The Code of Hammurabi? Or simply the Scientific Method?

For many, including me, the decision about your ultimate choice does not depend on how many " ...tomes and tomes written on this.", but whether these tomes are internally consistent, ....AND where the authors OF these tomes get their information! If you simply accept by authority that certain ancient texts (and not other ancient texts), have all the answers you need, you are making a decision that is in the final analysis, subjective.
No law against that, and there is, indeed, comfort in finding answers that satisfy you and that are shared by family and friends.....but those other choices are still out there, some requiring belief in different authority, and some rejecting almost all authority.

   I have many friends who DO have specific belief systems...some of whom believe, sadly, that it is unfortunate that a nice guy like me can't go to Heaven...and others who profess to believe that I'll be judged by the life I lead, no matter what I believe......and of course, others who don't think the issue matters, because they doubt that there's a Heaven to go to...*shrug*

Me? I just plow ahead, taking my chances...as that "free will" bit allows me to do. The old line is. "we'll see later who's right", but if there IS no 'afterlife', then we won't see later, will we? Ain't it fascinating what conundrums we can get ourselves into?

take care, grose, and thanks for the interesting comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 03:08 PM

but what if he made no decision to operate just because he "didn't know". He madea decision to go ahead and make a life decision (to operate) even though the did not know 100%. That is exactly the type of reasoning I am saying is responsible. You might not have been convinced 100% for that last "leap of faith" that you all claim stands between all the info and G-d. However, when it comes to life decisions, we need sometimes to go beyond the "i don't know" to what is the best outcome/most probable, etc. The doctor must have known (even though he wasn't sure) that there was probability you would make it through or he wouldn't responsibly make that "leap of faith" in operating on that heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:54 PM

Thank you Ron.

Grose....I've had several heart surgeries including a bypass and a valve replacement. As I also have an unrepaired and unrepairable aortic dissection the valve surgery was extremely high risk. I had one of the finest surgeons in the US using the latest in surgical technique and equipment. Prior to surgery we talked at length and after listing the Top 30 possible side effects starting with death and ending with loss of kidney functions, I asked him point blank, "Do you think I can make it through this surgery?"

He replied after some thought, "I can assure you we will take the best care of you and I will do the best job possible. But whether you'll make it through or not, I have no idea."

I knew he was the right man at that moment.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:43 PM

"when choices need to be made, there has to be a formula for responsible opting based on the information given "

Very true, to which "I don't know" is the appropriate answer. Everything is not black and white.   We can only make assumptions.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:39 PM

i was trying to comment on that in my last post to bill - that "i don't know" can work up to a point - however, when choices need to be made, there has to be a formula for responsible opting based on the information given

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:37 PM

I find it anything but a spectator sport and although I have spent a significant part of my life asking and searching and reading and studying and discussing and arguing.............I still am forced to answer "I don't know" to those end questions because no proof source exists without faith.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:32 PM

that would be okay if life were a spectator sport.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: catspaw49
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 02:16 PM

And what is wrong with opting for admitting, "I don't know?"

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 01:54 PM

bill d. - extremely clear, lucid and articulate. However, there are usually criteria for how one should opt. Of course one can opt for anything (that is the nature of free choice). However, there are legal, ethical, mathematical discussions of how to make a responsible choice. There are tomes and tomes written on this. What if your doctor were to pull off such a line, of saying, since I'm not certain I won't take that last reasoning step? He could choose to do so - however, there can be questions as to what he should have thought "probable" and how he should have chosen a step "responsibly". This actually has come up in legal cases - as well as discussed in business ethics, and in mathematics.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:53 PM

zTake any interesting question about anything.
Ask "why?" and "how?"
Then take THAT answer and re-ask the why & how.
Eventually, you get to the point where you are asking why & how about the very existence of the universe.

The point is, as beardedbruce and Paul Burke have noted, a G-d or "intelligent creator" is not required to seek answers *until* you get to that ultimate question........and then, you see, it becomes a matter of choice.
   There are two possible choices at that point...1)"I think an intelligent "creative force" started it all", or 2)"I don't know how it all started and can't really imagine, so I make no assumptions."
   The universe runs according to laws of physics: whether you LIKE thinking that those laws were 'designed' or not is a personal one.

Choice #1 requires an assumption; a premise; a decision. It is, literally, a personal, subjective decision - that's why we CALL that decision "belief". The position "I don't know" is not a DISproof of religious beliefs, it is, like believing, just a decision.


Notice: The choices I refer to are logical choices, not temporal ones. We make MANY decisions and ask and 'answer' many questions without referring to the origin of the universe. "Who wrote the Bible?" for example, and "Should I eat off of dishes that have had forbidden food touching them?"....but when you ask "**WHY** are these questions relevant, and how can I answer them, the ultimate logical question IS, "Was there a creative force, power, intelligence at the beginning which CAN make these rules?"

It is perfectly possible to live one's life in a nice, happy, constructive way without 'BELIEVING' in a Supreme Creator, though not without confronting the question! There are various reason that we humans decide TO believe, or NOT to believe, but for some, 'believing' requires that one extra logical step that they are not willing to take.....it is just an extra assumption, and they don't like making extra assumptions without evidence...and they have a pretty strict notion of what constitutes good evidence.

So, we have these debates - some based on trying to answer intermediate questions about daily life, but all eventually leading to that logically ultimate question "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:46 PM

No that's wrong. Death doesn't happen because DNA stops, that's why transplants from dead people work.

Cellular death is quite a different thing from systematic death, which is the breakdown of the metabolic system. This can occur after sudden disruption- loss of blood pressure, the faiulure of the heart to move oxygen and nutrients around etc. - or slowly, perhaps when some regulatory mechanism fails. Of course, when the supplies to the cells fail, cellular death follows, which is why organs for transplant must be removed quickly.

And brain death is another matter still. Brain dead people can be otherwise physiologically perfect.

Yes, DNA codes proteins, and needs good repair mechanisms, of which it has several. And sometimes the mechanism fails, occasionally resulting in runaway reproduction of that cell- you get cancer. As I said earlier, it took a long time to get that good.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grosen
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:17 PM

"The genes carry the instructions for making all the thousands of proteins that are found in a cell." Tis more than a recipe. A cake does not have to continue onwards. The DNA must give instructions throughout "life" on how to carry on that "life". When the DNA stops giving its instructions, then cometh "death"

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:13 PM

I guess maybe every ten years or so I nail it, Ron. :~) The rest of the time I'm widely thought to be full of not-yet-digested crap! :~)

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:11 PM

Thanks Susan, those are good words and good advice!!

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 12:06 PM

That's the point, DNA isn't an "instruction manual", not unless in your field every copy of an instruction manual is different. It's more like a recipe scrapbook- it contains a set of recipes that have been tried and worked (so far). It doesn't need a writer. Recipes that don't work get thrown away (along with the rest of that copy of the book), and only the ones that work get copied. Yes, it's hard to grasp if you forget how immense time is, and that, in one popular analogy, if the span of life on Earth were your outstretched arms, if the world came together at your left finger tips, multicellular creatures only started near your right wrist, and human history could be removed with one stroke of a coarse nail file.

I'm not saying that God did not set the mechanism up. Just that there's no sign so far that He has tweaked it since. And if He did design it, it almost vertainly wasn't set up to produce people. Bacteria maybe, but J.B.S. Haldane thought beetles.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:55 AM

Oh I dunno that apologies are needed, but if you get that feeling again it might help to keep in mind how few here share that orientation.

Maybe a less potentially pejorative word for the way I look at that issue is "inquire" or "explore." I certainly do know a lot of fundies for whom "to question" means "to rebel" or "to disobey." But Mudcat isn't full of them, and I think these days we are mostly among friends.

Ever notice, there also can be a wide and unarticulated difference between "I disagree" and "I look at it diferently"? We've tended to have a fair amount of chronic confusion there, too, around here. :~)

I'm prejudiced in favor of articulating what we intend, accurately, and intentionally trying to grasp what another intends, accurately. That's my proselytization for the day! :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:47 AM

"Not asking as a snidism, but where? I missed it, and if it was said, I don't recall too much agreement with it."

Fine, maybe it was my interpretation. If I am wrong to have walked away with that perception, I apologize.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:42 AM

"There have been many definitions of life created over the years, but there has yet to be a single definition accepted by all. Every definition has had to face down challenges to its validity. According to Carol Cleland of the University of Colorado, this is because definitions are concerned only with language and concepts; they can't expand our understanding of the world. We can only define things we already understand." Astorbiology Magazine
A current definition of life according to some is the DNA one, that any lifeform has an instruction manual.
Paul, will say "of course" as if that explains it. Why of course. And if there is an instruction manual, are you tell me there is no instructor whatsoever? hmm, stranger and stranger as Alice once said.
The whys, why is the world so perfect, why is the "chaos" and "randomness" controlled to perfection and who does it. Ah, yes, we do it all ourselves. How does that make any logical sense, folks?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:20 AM

"Has anyone said in this thread that we're not supposed to question or wonder?"

More or less, yes.

Not asking as a snidism, but where? I missed it, and if it was said, I don't recall too much agreement with it. :~) I think most Mudcatters who are believers feel and act quite otherwise.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:11 AM

Of course most solids are denser than the liquid at the same temperature. The crystal is more densely packed than the liquid. Water is different because its polar molecules line up (hydrogen bonding) when it crystallises (freezes). The resulting lattice is a more open structure than the chaotic liquid, which has enough energy to disrupt (most of) the hydrogen bonds. It is one of the features that has made Earth life possible on Earth.

Life as we know it couldn't exist without that feature. Which isn't at all the same as saying that life couldn't exist without that feature.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 11:02 AM

"For most substances, the solid form of the substance is more dense than the liquid phase; thus, a block of pure solid substance will sink in a tub of pure liquid substance. But, by contrast, a block of common ice will float in a tub of water because solid water is less dense than liquid water. This is an extremely important characteristic property of water. "(the good old trusty wikepedia's take)
"If water were like other substances, ice should form on the bottom of lakes and ponds because water would becomes more dense and sink as it cools." (USA Today)
all substances, Ron.
And we should wonder and question - and take our questions on the path they lead us to....
for without questioning and wondering, we don't get to know anything at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:49 AM

"Now give me the WHY"

I cannot. Neither can you. No one can. That does not give proof to the existence of god.

Also, give me an example of a substance that sinks when frozen.


"Has anyone said in this thread that we're not supposed to question or wonder?"

More or less, yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:45 AM

GUEST,grose,


IMO, of course- God set the rules by which the Universe runs- and gave it the first push. No further intervention has been needed.


A good job, as it is 13 billion years later. The rules are still being found out by us, but that does NOT mean they have not been in place the entire time.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:40 AM

All these arguments are based on the belief that, if life exists, it has to be OUR sort of life. Yes, there is a vanishingly small probability of finding another planet as suited to humans as Earth is. But you might consider the possibility that it's because we were designed around Earth, rather than the other way round. A process called natural selection outlines one possible way (the best known so far) this happened- that any of our ancestors' kin who didn't fit what Earth was like didn't last to be our ancestors.

On another planet, the same process would almost certainly (*) have produced an utterly different form of life, suited to whatever conditions that planet provided for them. And, if they can think, they probably think that their world (methane and ammonia at -40?) is absolutely wonderful. And it is- for them.

And if they can think, they probably have their own version of kosher.

(*) Like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% certain, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:40 AM

ron -thanks for explaining the science facts as to how water manages to float when frozen, but you haven't explained the WHY - why water - and other substances when frozen "scientifically" assemble themselves into a different formation (for which I am sure you can give me the exact structure) and then sink. The how is fascinating. Now give me the WHY.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:37 AM

It is a god given right to question, perhaps that is in his or her plan.

Dang, that's almost a classic Anglican view! :~)

Has anyone said in this thread that we're not supposed to question or wonder?


"Wondering" together with people is one of my favorite ways of relating to people and to the world. Personally, I like it far more than debating. It's amazing, how one can be doing one type of discussion and one's fellow discussors can be rigidly bound to another type, with neither pointing out that preference at the outset, nor along the rapidly-deteriorating way! It has the same effect as what we more often think of as proselytizing....

One can proselytize and judge for and by a particular secular philospohy without even realizing one is doing it, as can believers.

"People." Makes me wonder! :~)

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,grose
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:31 AM

"The Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the emergence of complex life required a host of fortuitous circumstances." Wikipedia - one sentence of many outlining this... etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 06 - 10:21 AM

" The "random" placing of our earth on its axis at the right tilt is so exact that one tiny tilt more forward or back would ensure that no life could be supported on earth."



?????