Jump to content

Jimshoen

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    64

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Jimshoen

    Agree To Disagree I Guess

    in Politics, Economics and News

    Posted

    Daniel - Great post. Sen Obama is an inspiring man and appears to be a great leader, but I'm having a hard time seeing an honest approach in his campaign. Take his 95% tax claim issue for example. First of all, more than 5% of Americans pay no federal tax at all, some estimate 30-40%. So Sen Obama can't cut taxes on 95% of Americans because there aren't 95% who pay, even if he could get the Congress to vote with him. It's not a tax cut, it's a rebate check. The rebates will be paid for by a windfall profits tax on oil companies. I'm guessing the oil companies will then increase gas and oil prices to offset the increase in tax they pay and we pay more. Also, if Sen Obama increases taxes on businesses they will pass those costs on to you. You'll need your rebate or "bate" check (can't get a "re-bate" if you didn't pay at all) to pay for these increased costs. Does this sound like a tax cut for 95% of Americans? Sounds dishonest to me. I realize both sides spin things, but this isn't even close and it affects my pocketbook. I wish 100% of Americans could have health insurance, but how do you pay for that. With at 95% tax cut? Taxes, personal or business, will increase the cost of living for most if not all Americans. If he says this about taxes, what other proposals are being presented in a less than honest way. Is this a case where someone will say anything to get elected. Honesty and integrity count. Agree or disagree.

    The How Dumb Is Daniel Thread

    in General Poker Forum

    Posted

    DN, I think your comments about many the religious right are spot on. It only takes a few "Christians" to send the wrong message. The Crusades and Inquisition come to mind - and we're all still paying for that. I'm sure Satan is more than happy for us to spend our time and energy chasing things that in the end won't really matter. Your comment about politics in first century and how Jesus dealt with it should give us all a better indication of where we ought to focus our energy. I also liked your comments on sin. In an age of relative truth - sin is what it is and we who claim to be Christians need to take the same line with all sin. I really enjoy your blog- thanks for taking the time and enegy to write it. Good luck on the tour.And thanks for the tracker mouse - it's the coolest.Jim

    Without God Im Useless Blog

    in Politics, Economics and News

    Posted

    DN, For one, I've been inspired by your expression of your Christian faith. I'm glad you talk about your life, your struggles, your goals, your successes, and your faith. You present yourself as a real person. I kinda miss you talking about Lori when you were dating and I'm glad you mentioned her in this blog. Our families are important to us. Thanks for sharng yourself with us. Jimshoen

    Christian View Of Sex

    in Religion

    Posted

    A comparison of 41 autopsied brains has revealed a distinct differencebetween homosexual and heterosexual men in the brain region that controlssexual behavior. The finding supports a theory that biological factorsunderlie sexual orientation, although it remains unclear whether theanatomical variation represents a cause or result of homosexuality, saysneurobiologist Simon Levay, who describes the study in the Aug. 30_Science_.
    You mean we can't control our behavior - our brain chemistry runs the show and we can't do anything about it?

    Reality Of 'god'

    in Religion

    Posted

    If you dont know I would like to share that I am a combat veteran who served in OIF... And while I was in Iraq aka mesopotamia between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers I really began to think about religion and god in general...And let me tell you there is no justice in who dies and who doesnt... God will not bring your soldier back...god will not bring your enemys friends back... how many people did the terrorists kill on 9/11 3000? my unit killed 7-12k in Iraq the first night (multiple launch rocket systems) and let me tell you those people prayed just like everyone else... "If god be for us, then who can be against us?"I just want a discussion into how it is possible to believe in something that has no explanation at all...that was founded on a story that was handed down for generations before it was written? God doesnt help anyone win a game or get drafted higher. or win an emmy but thats all you hear...thank you jesus (god) so where is god when you live and your friend gets shot and he prays everyday and I have my doubts... this is my question to you... are you any more or less a person if you dont believe in "god"where is the justice... dont take this lightly...but it has merit that only the good die young... I may be rambling here...but I can tell you if there is no justice from "someone you love" who shows no love back? were the people in NO any less religious than those in whichita kansas? Just from a war veteran I can tell you I have seen far too many things to make me have faith anymore
    Thank you for your serviceCol Jim Shoenhard, USAF

    Evolution Vs Not-evolution

    in Religion

    Posted

    Because everybody knows that watches are man-made, you would be an idiot to believe that a watch you found was naturally formed. Please read "The Blind Watchmaker," by Richard Dawkins. He addresses the creationist argument that because a thing is complex it must have been fashioned by an intelligent being....in fact, he addresses this notion starting with the title of the book.
    Dawkins' notion of evolution comes from his mind. The logic goes like this: Dawkins has in his mind a model of how evolution should work. He can create a computer program that approximates how the model in his mind works. Therefore, we are to believe this is how evolution works in the real world. Dawkins states the argument himself in these words: "There is another mathematical space filled, not with nine-gened biomorphs but with flesh and blood animals made of billions of cells, each containing tens of thousands of genes. This is not biomorph space but real genetic space." The assumption is that real genetic space is just like mental or computer biomorph space. Not so. In biomorph space, all variation is caused by only one mechanism, and the distance between intermediate forms is always a reachable mutation away. This is not what we observe in real genetic space. First, in real genetic space there are two distinct methods of producing offspring. In the normal case, the offspring's genetic material is a subset of the genetic material of the parents. When natural selection acts so as to favor certain varieties produced in this way, we call it micro-evolution. In the other, much rarer, case, the offspring's genetic material contains something that is not found in the parents. When natural selection acts so as to favor certain varieties produced in this way, we call it macro-evolution. Observed evolution is always micro-evolution. Second, we observe in real genetic space that there are natural limits to biological change. Dogs produce dogs and fruit flies produce fruit flies. Real genetic space has clusters of isolated living things, with a gap around them that keeps them distant from each other. Third, in real genetic space natural selection works in micro-evolution because the genetic material can express itself in the physiology of the offspring so as to give it an advantage.In macro-evolution, a large change is deleterious to the offspring, but a small enough change to do no harm is also too small to find enough expression for natural selection to make a difference. That is why observed mutations only swing left and right a little bit about the mean. Natural selection doesn't come into play for these small changes. Note that these are observed, objective properties of real genetic space, and not simply subjective beliefs. In the following chapter, Dawkins draws on his argument to have us also imagine the evolution he has in his mind. He says: "Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X? ... yes, provided only that the difference between the modern eye and its immediate predecessor X is sufficiently small." As shown above, small macro-evolutionary steps are not observed in the real world. But Dawkins makes it plain he's not in the real world: "If you have a mental picture of X and you find it implausible that the human eye could have arisen directly from it, this simply means that you have chosen the wrong X." This clearly shows X exists only in the mind. He goes on: "Is there a continuous series of Xs connecting the modern human eye to a state with no eye at all? ... yes ... You might feel that 1,000 Xs is ample, but if you need more steps to make the total transition plausible in your mind, ... assume 10,000 Xs ... allow yourself 100,000 and so on." So disregard reality, use his computer program as a model for reality, and make it "plausible in your mind." Meanwhile, real genetic space will not allow even a single X; there's too much distance between Xs for macro-evolution to jump. Since Dawkins is viewing the world through the lenses of his computer model, rather than starting with what is observable, we should not be surprised when he says "... not a single case is known to me of a complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications. I do not believe that such a case will ever be found. If it is ... I shall cease to believe in Darwinism." As long as he is constructing models in his mind, rather than looking at observable reality, this remains a safe statement. The counter argument to all this is typically that evolution works too slowly, in too small increments to be observed, and/or, in Dawkins' words: "just because there is no explanation doesn't mean it is not inexplicable." If it can't be observed, if it can't be measured, if it goes against what is observed, then how can it be called science? How can it be called fact?

    Do You Believe In Love?

    in Religion

    Posted

    Thanks Daniel. I really appreciate these devotionals. We have a hard time seeing through all the "issues" to see the central message. God is love and if we love God with all our whole heart, soul, minds, and strength and our neighbors as ourselves it will turn our lives upside down - and in God's eyes - right side up. The greatest compliment I ever received was from a person who in a public place for no real reason other than I was acting patiently when other might not said - "are you a Christian?" I replyed "yes, why do you ask" she said "I could tell by how you act" You hit it on the head today. We need to act like love is the central theme in our lives. I'm glad you're shining the light.Thanks too for playing in the DN Open tonight. It means alot for us small stakes players to get a chance to play in a tournament with you. I hope to get a chance to be matched at the same table some week. :club: JimShoen

    Live Webcast Rebroadcast?

    in Daniel Negreanu's Poker Protege

    Posted

    I talked with some of the FCP people the morning after the final table..and they mentioned something about me writing a blog about not only this past weekend..but going forward with my tenure as well.Quite busy this week...i'm actually moving apartments on friday..and i haven't slept much. Will try my best to start this sometime soon.Would anyone be interested in reading something like this? I would like to hear some feedback.-Fidler
    I'm in and let me add my congrats. I watched the last several hours of the webcast. All the best with DN. I'm interested in hearing how the whole ride goes. GL at the tables.

    Sweet 16

    in Sports- Basketball

    Posted

    Now that everyone's brackets have been busted, it's time to repick the sweet 16. Quote & Bold the winners, discuss....Atlanta Regional1 Duke vs. 4 LSU2 Texas vs. 6 W VirginiaOakland Regional1 Memphis vs. 13 Bradley2 UCLA vs. 3 GonzagaD.C. Regional1 Uconn vs. 5 Washington7 Wichita St vs. 11 George MasonMinneapolis Regional1 Villianova vs. 4 Boston College3 Florida vs. 7 Georgetown
    The #1 seeds are too tough this year. Gonzaga's got a good chance against UCLA, but I think UCLA's defense is too tough for Gonzaga. George Mason beat Wichita State late in the season in Wichita (one of the toughest places to play) and Mason's D is really tough. Mason will move on to meet UConn. Texas and Plorida will have their hands full, but will pull through.
×
×
  • Create New...