Great explanation - thanks! Would make a good Paul Harvey segment: "...And now you know the *rest* of the story". 8^) (perhaps he's already done it)
The cliché does get the point across in few words.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Absolutely. Notice the words "many of the target groups measuring..." in describing the "before" tests, and "average was a very respectable..." in describing the "after" results. That's why I stated ahead of time that it was not proof of anything.
Totally moot point. Did you miss my earlier post on accuracy vs. repeatability. **Repeatability** is the key (equates to pattern grouping or tightness of successive shots). Absolute accuracy is meaningless as it is calibrated out by site adjustment (or simply compensated for - in any case, 100% irrelevant for assessing the effects of the treatment.
Second, most barrels tend to shoot
I doubt they gamed the results around that. But you're right - it is a consideration.
Not enough info. to say one way or the other.
No - but I've only read up on the gun stuff as prompted by this thread. My original point in posting was simply to say that people might want to consider it for problem brake rotors since it aparently fixed my problem (which is not explained away by lug not torque issues).
That's peachy. I provided it for info., and even made some disclaimers about it myself. Al I know is my brakes don't shake anymore.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
While it may be true that non-technical people will (or are more likely to) fall for anything, that's not the point of the cliché. The point of the cliché is that science is what man says about the real world and is often wrong due to not enough information, false assumptions, not all factors being considered, or pure and plane faking of the so-called science yet accepting it as truth or fact.
The point of the cliché is that just because science can't (yet) prove that something works or can't explain *why* something works doesn't necesarilly mean that it doesn't work - otherwise gravity wouldn't have worked until Newton discovered (for lack of a better word) it.
This also means that it is entirely possible that, even though 300 Below doesn't do a good job of proving the technology, that doesn't mean it doesn't work. (On the other hand, it doesn't prove that it does either.) That's the truth of the matter).
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
Sainte-Lague's &
That would be true if the cliche hadn't been a joke. But is is a joke.
Your looking for a cliche more along the lines of the priests declaring that it's hersay to claim that the world isn't the center of the universe. All the religious leaders insistence that the world isn't the center of the universe didn't make it so. But wait, that's not science, it's religion.
The root of the problem is that a true scientist creates scientific theories, and by the time that the general public gets ahold of them, they have forgotten the "theory" part and are treating it as fact.
It's like the creationists that get so bent out of shape arguing against teaching "evolution" in the schools. Notice that they don't ever preach against teaching "the theory of evolution" it's just "evolution" A theory is something that isn't a fact, it's an assumption. Scientists ASSUME that the theory of evolution is correct, but if someone were to come up with a better theory that could explain the group of facts that point to the current theory of evolution, one that could be repeated and survive peer review, they would change their beliefs to this in place of the current theory of evolution.
No, your arguing religion here, not science. Science cannot explain certain phenomina such as the mother getting a premonition out of the blue that her daughter is in pain, then getting a phone call an hour later saying she was in an accident. Science cannot explain the scenes and stories reported by near-death patients. That doesen't mean that those things never happened. But neither does "Science" make any kind of claim that those things never happened either.
With the 300 below people, you cannot argue that "Science can't prove that it works" or "Science cannot yet prove that it works" simply because there appears no evidence that "Science" or more accurately the scientific method, has been employed to even test the hypothesis that supercooling makes any permanent change, and that if so, that the change does anything.
Well obviously. However, what we are observing is something a bit different.
It is a fact that most businesses attempt to increase their customer base and thus profits.
It is also a fact that advertising (such as the 300 Below website) is usually involved in some manner by most businesses to attempt to increase their customer base.
It is also a widely-held theory that advertising that cites some authority holds more weight than advertising based on pure testimonial. (ie: 4 out of 5 dentists...)
Thus, what we all find unusual is that the 300 Below people do not appear to believe in these theories and facts. Instead of spending their money funding some real scientific research that could develop a repeatable set of experiments on supercooling, and a theory or theories on why supercooling works, thus creating authoratative cites that they can use in their advertising, they have instead elected to depend wholly on testimonial.
It is not that 300 Below isn't doing a good job of proving their technology. They haven't even BEGUN to attempt the work of proving their technology. You can't do a both job on a job that you never even start doing. You actually have to make an attempt before you can botch it up.
Thus, the more jaded here among us are making an assumption - based on experience that companies that don't attempt to even try scientifically demonstrating their superior technology are generally fakes - that supercooling doesen't make a difference.
Ted
test
Natch.
Yes - I got that from your previous enlightening post - you continue to try to make it look like I didn't get that. That doesn't change the fact (IMO) that the meaning behind it is right-on - it fits many situations (that's why things become clichés, often with the original context of its origins being almost totally forgotten by the culture, as apparently is the case with this one. There are many things that science, or at least those unquestionably considered to be recognized by society as the scientific experts, say this week or last week or next week that I absolutely know are not true.
No - this one about the bee works for me - and it absolutely does apply to science. Look - we don't agree on these things. From my perspective, the fallacy is when people make science into a religion. What God says is right is right, not necessarily what ever-changing man-made science says, and not necessarily what some religious leaders say, so don't try to pull that one on me. You make it sound as though I'm claiming that I've scientifically proven something about cryo-treating, or that I think that 300 Below is above question. I have not said or implied either - and I've explicitly stated the opposite. Please stop making it sound as if I've fallen hook, line, and sinker for some charletons. I've simply reported my results as a single user, and have suggested that others may want to consider it. I do not denigrate anyone who isn't willing to take the risk (i.e., spend the money for something that is not proven) as I have and gotten good results. The option for something that is not proven is out there. What the hell is wrong with that!?
...But you digress
I fail to see how you get that. You are the one that has introduced religion into this discussion. What does Newton/gravity/cliché have anything to do with religion?
That so? Here's an excerpt from a magazine article linked on their site: "Metals are affected by heat treating. These changes are called Phase Transformations and are named variously: Bainite, Austenite, and Martensite. Austenite is a softer form than Martensite. Cryogenic Processing will complete martensitic transformation from austenite. A research metallurgist at the National Bureau of Standards, states, "When carbon precipitates form, the internal stress in the martensite is reduced, which minimizes the susceptibility to micro cracking. The wide distribution of very hard, fine carbides from deep cryogenic treatment, also increases wear resistance." The study concludes: "...fine carbides and resultant tight lattice structures are precipitated from cryogenic treatment. These particles are responsible for the exceptional wear characteristics imparted by the process, due to a denser structure and resulting larger surface area of contact, reducing friction, heat and wear." New Findings
"The subjected metals also develop a more uniform, refined microstructure with greater density. These particles were known, but never quantified scientifically until recently. `Carbide fillers' are precipitated as a result of the deep cryogenic processing. In a university study from Jasy Romania, the carbides were shown to have tripled in the structure after Cryogenic Processing. The carbides fill the open spaces, or micro-voids, resulting in a much denser, coherent structureof the steel. The end result is increased wear resistance. These particles were identified and counted using a scanning electron microscope with field particle quantification. (An automatic particle counter.) It is now believed that these particles are largely responsible for the great gains in wear resistivity. The change created is uniform throughout the steel unlike coatings, and will last the life of the steel, regardless of any subsequent finishing operations or regrinds. It is a permanent irreversable molecular change."
See above. So - that obstacle is out of the way. Need more science before you believe it? Sorry - I cant give it to you, nor do I feel obligated to do so. You're going to believe what you want to regardless what I or 300 Below present
- and that's OK. But, again, I have no obligation to prove anything to you.
So...
So...
If 300 Below sponsored an air-tight 100% scientific study, would you not pooh-pooh it because the people doing the study would, after all, feel beholden to their customer, and potentially deliberately or subconsciously skew the results of the study - is that not what you and other skeptics would claim?
So who would have both the interest and money for funding such a study that does not also have a vested interest in its outcome (i.e., whose results that you would accept as scientific "proof")? Enthusiasts (gun enthiusiasts, for example) might have the interest, but beyond "proving" it to their own satsifaction that it improves their performance, they probably lack the motivation or the finances to make it a truly scientific study that you or Matt would accept.
What about an end-user company that wanted to find out if they could achieve some advantage over their competition by use of this technology. *THEY* indeed might fund an internal or third-party study, but if it proves to be a valid breakthrough, they certainly aren't going to be inclined to release the results to the public and therefore their competition.
So, again, I ask: Who do you propose to do this study that you are demanding be done before there could possibly be anything to this? Keep in mind - it can't be anyone funded by 300 Below - no - can't allow that. Maybe Jack Nicklaus - but then, it could very well be that he doesn't give a crap about the technolgy and any real improvement it could make in his golf clubs, and only uses it in his product as a sales gimmick - and I would agree that that is entirely possible.
Well, you're wrong on that. See the NIS quotes above. Ironically, you are making it look like I am not objective about this, but obviously are not wanting to be objective yourself. Beyond that, you're telling me that if 300 Below hired a lab to make the study, you would believe the results and not claim that "Of course they're going to say it works - look who's paying the bill!"? I seriously doubt it.
Again - tell me how they would do that that you wouldn't find some vested interest issue or some other political problem in. No doubt you will out-of-hand question the credibility of both the NIS statements and the Romanian university study.
"Jaded" is not generally a positive attribute, but with the lack of objectivity that, IMO, you are demonstrating, it may be an accurate description. I don't know whom else "here" you are characterizing as being jaded. They might not appreciate that. Perhaps you meant people with healthy skepticism. 8^)
"...companies that don't attempt to even try scientifically demonstrating their superior technology are generally fakes". How can we believe a statement like that - has a scientific syudy been done to show that to be thruth? Your not allowed to make such a claim until you prove it scientifically. Or is that your opinion based on, as you said, your experience? (rhetorical question)
Again, I reference the statements by the NIS guy. Once again, it does not appear that you are objective on this. Can't help but wonder why.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
I looked up "headspace" on google, and I now see what you mean on that point. Excess headspace (space between the bolt and the chamber to contain the cartridge rim - if too large, some gas escapes instead of propelling the projectile) = lower projectile velocity = inherently lower accuracy and precision/repeatability. Got it.
I tried to post a more thorough handling of this, but for some reason, it doesn't show up. Perhaps this shorter version will.
But basically, by them having tested multiple barrels, treated and untreated, unless they dishonestly manipulated the results (i.e., by assembling the untreated barrels with excessive headspace), it would be acceptable in scientific studies to assume that random variation in headspace would be somewhat evenly distributed between the two groups. I think it's reasonable to assume that, barring pure dishonesty, the person doing the assembly is qualified and used proper tools (headspace gage, etc.) and techniques to minimize the range of variation. The possibility of dishonest skewing is a fact of life whether a study is casual or 100% scientific in its design, and so is not **in itself** (there may very well be other reasons of which I am not aware) a reason to reject the results any more than the results of any study, scientific or otherwise.
As with Ted, I can't figure out why, when I am not claiming to have proven anything or that 300 Below has proven anything, it appears that you think I have to prove that it works or that you seem to think that I am claiming that it is proven "scientifically".
As I told Ted - all I have done is report that it looks like it fixed my problem, and suggest that others may consider it if they are having continual problems with their brakes. Is that so horrible?
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
I agree. I just haven't come across such a test as yet. Have you seen one? Most articles I've seen use a sample size of one...
Matt
I understood you got it. Your missing the point. I am merely saying STOP WITH THE BUMBLEBEE THING.
If you want to use cliches to illustrate your ideas, then go for it. I do sometimes as well. Just stop repeating the bumblebee one and find another cliche is all.
I don't disagree here. But I don't think that any man while alive can ever know with any degree of certainty what exactly God says.
Nothing, as long as it's presented this way. The 300 Below website does NOT present Cryo treating as "not proven" they present it as a fact. That is the problem.
Yes, I found that as well. You will also note of course the date - 1994 - there has been a lot of time elapsed since then. Why do you think that they had to go so far back for a link? Why isn't there anything more current?
There were a lot of companies that did cryo treating back then, much more than today. Why is that?
Yes, I have done the research as well and I am aware that this transformation is what is most commonly cited. However, I have also found people saying that during the course of this that the cryo processing must be done as part of the metal quenching process. In short, the part to be cryo treated must be heated to near melting point, then quenched in the cryo freezer. If this is not done, and the metal is quenched to room temperature, and time elapses, the Austenite changes into a stable form in which it is not possible to convert into martensite later, even if cryo treated.
There are a number of very good threads on this in the sci.engr.mech, sci.materials, sci.engr.metallurgy newsgroups that are much more current than the 1994 article that the 300Below site cites. There are many people giving their opinions there who list their qualifications and the opinions have a much wider diversity than the 300 Below site has.
Why do you say that?
No. It depends on how the study is done.
Surely you know that the major drug companies are required by law to do extensive studies of their new drugs before they are allowed on the market in the United States. This kind of thing isn't limited to drug companies as well.
There are auditing firms that have reputations to protect that can be hired to audit the study and report if the study really was done according to the scientific method and wasn't biased. The amount of money a company like 300Below would pay these firms are miniscule compared to the overall yearly profits these firms make, and as such these firms have no vested interest in lying to protect
300Below.AND FURTHERMORE how does anyone know that 300Below hasn't already DONE such a study and found the results inconclusive? If 300Below did do such a study and had it properly audited and such, if they didn't like the results, then nothing requires them to release them. After all they did pay for the results.
If 300Below really did fund a 100% scientific study, the ENTIRE methodology would be disclosed, and you bet your bippy that somewhere someone would attempt to replicate it.
The only time that the skeptics like me disagree with industry-funded studies is when they are done in such a way that the methodology isn't released so that independent verification is impossible. It's like the Consumer Reports surveys. CR does not release the methodology, nor do they release the names of the respondents. So if they claim that 200 people say they hate Hondas, there is no way for an independent to call, say, 10% of that 200 and see if all of them did in fact answer yes to the "do you hate Hondas" question. For all we know CR is just making up it's results, there's no way to check.
Since just about 99.9% of industry studies are done this way, no wonder we automatically knee-jerk dismiss them. But it's not impossible to do them properly.
US Military for one.
Those are not NIS statements. They are 9 year old claims by a magazine that a person that worked at NIS claimed them.
No, I am not allowed to say that: "companies that don't attempt to even try scientifically demonstrating their superior technology are fakes" without a scientific study. :-)
I am objective on this, and so far all the reading I've done in the Usenet archives which are in the last few years are like yours, a bunch of opinion. The only single thing I've seen at all authoratative was that a materials scientist stated several years ago that the US Army was going to study cryo treatment and report their results. I could not find any results from this so I went ahead and e-mailed the guy. He did claim that they found that a change took place in the tested materials, but he hasn't seen a copy of the study and has no info on whether the change is significant or not. He is going to see if he can get a copy of the report, so we will see what happens there. Unfortunately, this is the best lead I have and like most of these leads, once again it's hearsay. And worse, the guy was a cryo proponent before he announced the study was being done, so if he does come up with a report, I'll have to rerequest it through official military channels to see if they even did it at all.
Everyone else has different opinions. For example in one article from snipped-for-privacy@email.msn.com, dated Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Message-ID: 8ui23r$teq$ snipped-for-privacy@nnrp1.deja.com he states the following:
"We are in the wear and tool business. (See
In short, my point of view is this. The 300Below claims of cryro processing are unproven. The burden of proof is on 300Below to demonstrate their superior service. Furthermore, the process that 300Below claims that they use does not even square with the recommendations of some of the cryro proponents out there, whom are claiming that heating must be a part of the treatment. In addition, there is no agreement among metallurgists (at least, not any of the ones that post on Usenet) that the cryo process does anything. Additional searches of the Web that I have done turn up a bunch of companies selling the process, but precious little in academic studies. There's maybe 2 of them out there on the Web that claim the process works, which are documented well enough to be repeated. Neither of these was published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal nor have they been repeated. So, I discount them.
I have an open mind on this. Perhaps the process works on rotors, perhaps it doesen't. But even if it does work on rotors, I find some of the claims on the 300Below site to be really silly. For example one of them is that rifles experience higher barrel velocity, well how can this be the case just because the rifel is harder?!?! It makes no sense at all. And even worse is the claim that it helps aluminum bats. Aluminum is a completely different material than steel and does not have carbon fibers in it and all the rest of that.
In summary, like I said previously, it is unusual that the 300 Below people are not spending their money funding some real scientific research that could develop a repeatable set of experiments on supercooling, and a theory or theories on why supercooling works, thus creating authoratative cites that they can use in their advertising, they have instead elected to depend wholly on testimonial. Unusual, and very stupid if supercooling actually works.
Ted
No I have not come across such a test, and because of the reasons I cited in my post to Ted, I am not holding my breath for one. Even assuming that cryo-treating is the best thing since sliced bread, 300 Below would probably be wasting their money funding such a study because, as I said, the skeptics will simply say "Well dang! You can't believe that study - look who paid for it - you think the people who did that are going to say it doesn't work and lose a good customer!?" - so it will have been money wasted on 300 Below's part.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
That's good - I felt like you were trying to make it look like I was unable to grasp that due to my being so pathetic. Apparently I was wrong for feeling that way. 8^)
Your missing the point. I am merely saying STOP
Yes sir! (actually I will continue to use it when the situation fits - generally when I see someone attempting to make science into a religion.)
Actually I think its surprising how much you can know with certainty (possibly we differ on that). The mistake many make is to essentially say "I can't know everything with enough certainy, therefore I will reject it all and blame God when my life gets screwed up" (I'm not saying that applies to you - it just seems to be a common human tendency.) You wanted another cliché - OK - here's one: "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water".
Right or wrong, good or bad that is the nature of businesses selling a product - listen to any car ad - even Chrysler car ads. After all, we all want "crushed Corinthian leather" don't we? 8^) Watch the 4-wheel drive trucks driving over huge rocks that would void your warranty. They tend not to downplay the negatives, shortcomings, limitations, or whatever of their products. And that is where the "healthy skepticism" that was mentioned earlier comes in.
All good points. Proves nothing, but, yes - those observations need to be plugged into the skepticism equation.
I can't say I disagree with that, but that sounds just as much like hear-say than anything you have pointed out. The Worth bats are heat treated just before the cryo:
Useful info. Not surprising at all. But of course their opinions are infinitely more credible than the NIS guy. I doubt the laws of physics have changed much since 1994 (although I realize that your point is that we probably should know more by now, which maybe we don't for some strange reason).
Read back thru your previous post - you would have thought that there was absolutely nothing but testimonials (and I see you even repeat that fallacy below) on the 300 Below site - nothing about the NIS guy or the Rumanian univeristy study, but you now acknowledge that you have seen them. To be honest, as I said, it did not appear that you were being (or would in the future be) objective on this no matter what was presented. You do seem to have softened a bit and regained some objectivity with this post, though in places...
Fair enough.
And how often do we hear of drugs being recalled because eighty or ninety-some people surprisingly died from it when used as prescribed even though it has gone thru all the FDA protocols that scientifically proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was effective and safe.
Valid point (although, Arthur Anderson, RIP, had a good rep as an auditing firm - sorry - couldn't resist.) 8^) Bottom line, humans can't be trusted - even in scientific studies, you have no way of knowing when. for **WHATEVER** reason they are faking things and when they aren't.
You don't - true of practically any claim.
Ipso facto, cryogenic treatment doesn't work and is a scam? Again, these are all things that are true of **ANY** human endeavor.
Valid point.
Valid point.
Valid point. It's used in armor piercing stuff and high-wear items like tank tracks and gun barrels, and is so good that it's kept secret. I'm only kidding - but a possibility. Just as likely as 300 Below having had a study done that disproved it and hid the study.
Thanks for proving my point. I wasn't aware that the laws of physics had changed since '94.
OK - good.
All probably true. His opinion is as valid as yours or mine.
The ball bats are pre-heated. I also would find it hard to believe that brake rotors were not stress-relieved as a final step before leaving the factory - if not, that may explain warping the first time they heat up in application on "bargain" rotors.
I find that hard to believe. The statements to the contrary are pretty clear.
Additional searches of
Then, again, you're not being objective. Besides, peer-reviewed journals publish articles one year saying that margerine is better for you than butter, and the next year that butter is better, and the next year that margerine is better, ad infintum, so, though I do respect the scientific process, I don't put quite the credence in the scientific community that you do (even though I'm part of it - seen too much crap - and in that respect, like you, I too am jaded), nor do I dismiss as easily as you do more casual "science" - lifes too short to prove
**EVERYTHING** to the Nth degree. Remember the bumble bee! (sorry - had to say that) 8^) And olive oil will get rid of gall stones even though the MD's will tell you that it's impossible.Oh, I don't know - harder finish due to all the extra carbide particles so evenly distributed throughout - could affect resonances, energy losses, surface friction,... Again, you are dismissing so much out of hand as even being possible. That shows lack of objectivity.
And even worse is the claim
So therefore 7050 (CU31) aluminum alloy could not possibly benefit from cyro treatment. How do you know that similar molecular processes don't happen in the particular alloys of aluminum. Or how do you know that completely different mechanisms take place but that improve properties. From the Worth page: "The aluminum alloy consists of some of the following elements; silicon, iron, copper, manganese, magnesium, chromium, nickel, zinc, titanium, scandium, zirconium, and very small traces of other elements". I doubt that you can look at the list of components and say what happens to the alloy when treated.
Ya gotta admit - "Ball Buster" is a clever name and makes you want to believe it just from that! 8^)
Not true. NIS, Rumanian university, for starters.
Unusual, and very
Maybe so. So far no proof either way, eh? Just a lot of opinions, speculation, hear-say both ways. The materials are going to obey the laws of physics (known and unknown) regardless of what you or I say or believe. That darn bumble bee just keeps flying!
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
There are many independent laboratories who will perform such tests.
Matt
OK, point made. But, if your going to go down that road, your going to have to use something for basis of judgement of what in the whole God scene is the baby and what is the bathwater. And where does that something come from? Only 2 places, either blind faith, or logic based on observable fact. So the argument circles and once again starts over.
This is a bit different. The usefulness of an automobile doesen't have to be proven to anybody (except perhaps a few hard-core bicycle riders) so it isn't necessary for car advertisers to justify that your better off with a car than without. So right there goes 99% of all the reasonable/logical arguments that might be used in an advertising claim - they are already accepted, so the only thing that is left is appeals to emotion. (which is what the driving over axle-breaking rocks is all about)
But, like the people attempting to prove that Techron is useful, or Dentyne gum actually reduces tooth decay, or some other unproven claim, not only does the manufacturer have to use an emotional sweep in the advertising (ie: pictures of kids in the gum commercials, cute little clay cars that move in the gasoline commercials) they have to interject some of the appeal to reason, to justify that their product even works at all. 300Below is using just about all appeals to emotion in it's advertising, which isn't reasonable for a product that's unproven - unless it's a product that doesen't work at all. (in which case the typical MO is 100% appeals to emotion)
But neither of these is put at the forefront of the site. And besides the site links, I can't find any reference of them elsewhere on the Internet. So I can't believe that Below300 feels that they are that credible or they would be made more obvious on the site.
You would have to spend an hour digging through all the crap on the 300Below site to find these.
We don't. Or at least, we don't hear about drug withdrawls as long as the benefits outweigh the risks.
Take aspirin. According to one MD here:
I did think of that also.
But even you are scratching at things rather than attempting to make a logical response on that one. There are some claims that are so obviously outlandish that before any reasonable person can believe them, that they have to be accompanied by some logical argument.
Sure, your going to run across things from time to time that are "not intuitive" as they say. But when someone is making one of these kinds of claims, there is tremendous burden of proof on them to accompany the claims with a reasoned explanation. That isn't the case on the 300Below site on the aluminum bat thing.
It's not the laws of physics that are the problem. It's in understanding how those laws interact to form some material property that is desirable.
Ted
No disrespect to Bill, but I don't see the rationale behind freezing the rotors either. It would be interesting to see what a really knowledgable metallurgist has to say on the subject rather than the marketing silliness on their website. Personally, as far as usefulness goes, I'd rank this along with "paint sealant" at a new car dealership. 8-) But hey, if it makes you happy....
Cheers,
C
Unfortunately too many people, by their freedom of will have accepted the "blind faith" junk - in many cases out of laziness and in this age of instant gratification (they can't push a button and 5 seconds later have an understanding of all truth, so they chuck it), because the word of God itself tells people who have ears to hear and eyes to see how to do it based on observable fact - to wit: II Tinothy 2:15: "Study the shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed (better translation of "ashamed" is "disappointed in his expectations") rightly dividing the word of truth".
So it takes work and time - lots of time in some places - to overcome the fallacies that have crept into the truth and made it into just another man-made religion, and the translational errors, some done intentionally for political reasons at the time of translation - but the tools are there - things like concordances, interlinear Greek texts - lots of tools that will get you back to the original intent. But again, it's freedom of will. One person might decide to not believe it at all. Another might try a casual attempt (not putting the work into finding out the truth and getting rid of the man-introduced errors) and end up as II Timothy promises "disappointed in his expectations".
I choose to believe it and to do the work of finding out the truth. What you find out is that the closer you look at the things man does, the more imperfection you see. The closer you look at God's works, the more perfection you see. Anyway, if I'm wrong, I guess it won't make any difference at the end of the day. If I'm right, the promise is that I won't be ashamed, or disappointed in my expectations.
Enough of this - I'm not willing to expand this furhter into this type of discussion.
We're talking in circles. You have used no more logic (maybe less) in your claim that something doesn't work than I have used in saying that it appears to work for me. As I said before - we can argue this til the cows come home. The materials are going to obey the lawss of physics, and talking about it won't change a thing. You choose what you believe, I'll choose what I believe. We'll both get the results of our beliefs. All I know is my brakes don;t chatter anymore, and my back feels great.
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
OK, now it's starting to be interesting...
Hmm, well I hate to break it to you but Man wrote the Bible. Gee Bill, you started off so promising too! One again your trapped in yet another circular argument. If you argue that Man's works are imperfect compared to God's, then that means the Bible is imperfect. And if that's the case then what the Bible says about God - him being perfect, that is - isn't perfect and thus wrong. But this then knocks the props out from under the argument that Man is imperfect compared to God because God's imperfect because what Man writes about him is imperfect. It just goes round and round with no basis in anything. What it boils down to is once more a strict "blind faith" statement of "I believe God is perfect, Man is not" with no basis except what basis applies to the person making the statement.
Old argument. Based on Matthew 5.48 See above.
This is the old "Believe in God because if He exists you will benefit and if He doesen't then you haven't lost anything" argument. It's called Pascal's Wager and it is stupid. It's also been disproved. See
Not surprising. Bill, you really need to learn how to do a decent religious argument. So often your religious posts start out full of promise then you wreck them by tacking on some bromide. It's a shame, didn't anyone ever tell you to think for youself? What YOU have to say is far more interesting than outdated theological arguments.
Just keep in mind that the Religions of the world are mostly who created all the "justifications" that God/Jesus/Mary/Frank/Sam/whoever existed, and all the justifications that we must believe in them, yadda yadda yadda. All done to justify to the faithful why they need to keep coming back to the temple every week and put more coins in the Priest's pot. If you faith is so weak as to require these justifications and old religious arguments to support your belief, then you have a real problem.
I'm not claiming it doesen't work. I'm stating that the people who are claiming that it DOES work aren't providing any theories of why it allegedly works, nor are they providing any means of replicating their claimed success. Thus in effect I'm claiming that there is no basis for it working. This is different than stating that I have proof it doesen't work.
This is somewhat of a glass half-full, half-empty routine. You are a person who is willing to believe that something works until proven that it doesen't. I am a person who believes that something doesen't work until proven that it does. It is no wonder we don't agree on this.
Ted
Physically, yes (you didn't really think that I thought otherwise did you?), but quess who told them **WHAT** to write. But the Bible itself even addresses this in II Peter 1:21 (which, no doubt, you don't believe
- and that is absolutely your privilege).
Only if you start out with your initial false assumption that man wrote it independent of God's direction (and - no - I don't expect you to necessarily believe that; again - free will). (sorry for the split infinitive, but I think they are saying that those are acceptable now)
And of course, your argument (which appears to be that the Bible is imperfect, therefore I can't believe it, therefore, the only thing remaining for knowing truth is my own human logic which says that the Bible is imperfect, and therefore the only thing remaining for knowing truth is...) is not circular. (sarcasm)
Again, once you start with your foundation made of sand, your building is doomed to crumble. A good foundation is built on rock.
..same as your beliefs, right?
So your wisdom that is higher than God's wisdom, and that will ensure your eternal life based on your own brand of circular human logic, is...?
So old = bad? I see. Not very good logic. Gravity is old, yet still works.
Ummm - how could you say that something like that is proved or disproved? It is self-evident, though probably not of much worth and certainly not the basis of my faith like you seem to falsely assume. Ironic that you use the word "stupid" immediately prior to making a statement like that. BTW - that is not the basis for my faith.
See
To what purpose? I can't make you believe or not believe anything, nor would I try. Again, free will. I don't argue these things (Proverbs
26:4 - hmmm - perhaps I am guilty of this?).
Not familiar with that expression or its meaning. At least my bumble bee cliché has obvious and clear meaning.
Oh - I see - you mean that I should accept what you're trying to tell me. Oh wait - that wouldn't be thinking for myself now would it. Sounds like another of your circular arguments ("If I don't think like Ted thinks I ought to, then I am not thinking for myself. Therefore, I must think like Ted to show that I'm thinking for myself").
Hmmm - funny Ted - I haven't set foot in a church building in several years (OK - my daughter did get married recently, but that's an exception) - can't stomach most of what I hear because the truth has been watered down so much to be pallatable to those who want to reject God's Word and elevate man's "wisdom". Do you think maybe that that might be a clue that I might in fact think for myself just a bit, Ted? You ever been excommunicated, Ted. Well I have. So get off your holier-than-thou-because-you're-a-smarter-than-God-independent-thinker bullsh**!
I just proved to you that I don't require such justifications, so does that mean that (by your own words) my faith is not weak and that I in fact don't have a real problem.
Again - old is by definition bad. A running theme with you. Gravity is old and it still works. If someone were to listen to your logic and believe that old is inherently bad and false, then, believing that gravity is a crock, he might try driving off of a cliff believing that he will not get hurt. Problem is that reality is a bitch.
They don't owe you that. Why do you assert that they do? They had to think these things thru and decide what they want to believe and disbelieve just like you did. I replicate my success all the time, and I am under no obligation to prove it to you or even to tell you what it is just so you can vomit all over it.
Thus in effect I'm claiming that
I have proof, but not that you would accept.
I am a person who believes that something doesen't
And that's pretty sad. Not uncommon, but sad. (Actually I think people are not being honest with themselves when they say such things - it just makes them feel macho to say things like that.) I can think of many things that you cannot prove, but that you act on, or you would not still be alive.
Amen. We both will get the results based on our beliefs and how they line up with God's reality, whether provable or not. If you have problems with that, don't complain to me - I didn't set it up that way. God went to the trouble of not only making salvation available to you, but he had the factory shop manual of life written so you could know the truth, and people will still complain about it. I Timothy 2:4,5
I Corinthians 1:17-25
Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")
One Troll in a town can cause some noise, Two trolls in a town can make a very lot of noise.
(old joke about lawyers)
gentelmen...gentlemen.....this is robert who started this post about rotars for a 1999 dodge grand caravan.....this original question sure has gone through a lot of twists and turns....
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.