Dale

John, Do people question why a fence is .15 sq.ft. and a wall is $1.++ sq.ft.? thats quite a difference.

Hi Ron, Cost for what?..to buy it..to clean it..to restore it??..for any of those you would have to know more about it..size it for us.

Everett, Are Sashco and Clemco related companies?..I'm trying to find out more about the unit and the comparable price to a new unit. Thank Dale

Hi Everett, I see you mentioned cob-blasting...have you ever heard of the Clemco line??...I have a line on what I think is a great deal....the price keeps going down for lack of interest, but I have NO experience in blasting and just wonder what makes up a good unit??...Thanks for any help Dale

Hi Brian, If you take over the retail end are you planning on making good on prepaid orders that were never received?..just wondering about that. Dale

Hi Paul, ..you want to sell that one pad??..looks like its in pretty good shape..lol....I just noticed that at the propowerwash site Greg is offering the site, forums, and rights and reciepes for the Timber Pro line of products and the rest is up for bid

...let me guess ..that won't work because they stamp the 9" circle at the same time they stamp the center...oh well just a thought

Yeah..I'm a bit disappointed too...prepaid $150. order 4+ months ago.. and nothing but charge to my card.....I don't know if this is makes any sense..but can you buy 9" blanks?? and just X the center??..it all just sort of squishes together anyway...if you can catch a couple of threads you should be good to go..no??...I just tried it with an old pad and it seems to work just fine...make a 9" template to mark center and ...poof..defelting pad...would blanks be cheaper??

Paul, Thank you for the reply and clarification ...it helped me understand the fact/circumstantial evidence perspective..maybe we were juggleing apples and oranges back and forth.. "Do you think we can offer any information, evidence or any comment you have not already heard that will help You arrive at an explaination?"...yes, the view point expressed in this thread have been and still are interesting and thought provoking..its alway good to question how and why we think what we do...but I don't think I'll arrive at a conclusion one way or another until the information is available. Whatever the answer is ,its just not really important to me. I stated in one of my earliest post that I thought that where this all came from may be in some process or phenomenon we may not discover for 1000 yrs. and if and when we do..so what??.. life is what life is.... I'm pretty sure I'll be long dead before that happens. As for the rest.. from the eyes of a baby to the reality of my own life...I can't honestly say to myself "you're the product of a single cell " or creation...I suspect that there's an unknown factor yet to be understood. Paul, I feel that we've been dominating the thread and it would be interesting to have more feedback from others....wouldn't it be a hoot if we were the only ones who found this interesting.....Maybe everyone else has been pulling their hair out and screaming...SHUT UP..SHUT UP...SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUP!!!! at their computers. LOL.

Paul, Goodness Gracious...I thought shorter post were the idea.lol. Calm down!!..this is just an interesting discussion.. I appreciate your passion but there seems to be a bit of ad hominem flavor to some of it. The same process is happening again..state as fact a position that wasn't made ..and run with it." OK, so your position is that I made up the information....or at least used a very unreliable source."...I never said you made it up. "Without knowing and hearing all my arguements, you are willing to dismiss all of it as irrelevant"...never said it.. My reference to facts being relevant was the assumption that left handed proteins or whatever show "creator"..thats all. I don't have a predetermined conclusion. I am listening with an open mind as far as I can tell. I do think that circumstantial evidence bears weight in making conclusions. I haven't dismissed any scientific evidence pointing to creation.. You gotta admit your post had a definite M.E.G.O. volume to it. So what am I saying?..the same thing I've said all along..I don't think either side has all the answers, and I think more information is needed to arrive at a explaination. "I don't understand why learning would have to stop if the issue of creation and evolution is settled"....misses the point I was trying to make.....the reference was not that learning stops if the question IS settled, but that learning stops for the person who THINKS its already settled. "I do not believe that "Believers" seek knowledge in general because there are non-believers but rather because of a desire to know the unknown.. I agree. Knowing that unknown requires accepting what is found even if it is undesirable or difficult to accept...chooseing the "better deal" should have no bearing. why would that equal no hope? Prigogine's own comment on his own work shows humility...what would you have said..I HAVE FOUND THE MISSING PIECE!!.. Gish's response seems neither here nor there..pointing to speculation as proof of a false reasoning would have killed creationism or evolution long ago....speculating on how things probably work is how we learned to fly...and all the other stuff too. " I suppose you (with an open mind)."..etc. .. kinda ad hominem.. ....Mathamaticians.......didn't know what he was talking about....which ones?? appearantly someone did...he won the Nobel Prize.... haven't read Berlinski.. I think that the rest is basically speculation...actually, the length of the post makes it difficult to respond to...I have a lap-top and a touch pad.. no roller mouse ..so I have to constantly leave the text window, click, drag down, hopefully remember the quote or point move back up, find my place and start typing...too much trouble. If the posts were a couple of paragraphs, they can be seen from the reply box....shorter posts PLEASE. Scott, you make a good point about understanding what constitues acceptable substantiation...that has to be clear in order for people to be on the same page.. What constitutes acceptable substantiation to you?

Paul, I sense this discussion is about to launch into space...please take a picture of the Rover as you pass Mars..lol....Just a joke.. Again the premise is being made that the facts being presented are not only true .but relevant....sweeping statements like "ALL life consists of"....and then no doubt a barrage of M.E.G.O. (.My Eyes Glaze Over) information. Paul, Who's your source..hopefully not Gish. There's nothing to respond to Paul...the statement doesn't ask a question!..for me to respond would start the process I mentioned before of having a person of a conflicting view fruitlessly fuel the other persons case..why would anyone do that?...to me that seems like a defensive approach.... Maybe because I try to agree with people I'm seeing the similarity in our view...you want your position supported by facts and will go to the molecular level to find them...but why stop there? actually there is no "left" or "right"..there are positive and negatively charged particles and at a quantum level whether they're positive or negative is determined by observation. This may be a condition that actually supports a view showing the limits of logic....but my position has aways been its not "either"..."or"... But my position has also been equal evaluation criteria...if the parameter of the dicussion is going to be logic as implied by "Lets address the unlikely probablity that a living cell would be by random process be formed"....it seems that the asker of the question should be able to answer the same question posed by someone questioning THEIR position....sooo...Let me ask a question and you decide if your answer would satisfy your own standards of acceptability if coming from someone of an opposing view...What is the likely probability that everything was created by a supernatural being?

Hi Paul, I guess I left my point about useing science when it suits your needs kinda muddy..but people who believe in creationism sometimes use the second law of thermodynamics to imply evolution can't be true.. Ilya Prigogine won the noble prize in 1977 for his work in thermodynamics of nonequilibrium systems. He wrote how nonequilibrium thermodynimics solves the puzzle of how life can originate and increase its state of order in spite of entropy and the Second Law of thermodynamics. The Second Law states that in a closed system, "useful" energy that can do work gradually becomes converted over time into energy that is unavailable for use..entropy, or an increase in disorder. You could interpret this to mean that complex living systems could not have evolved from simpler forms because overall, things run down rather than build up. But living things are open systems and are far from a state of equilibrium. They aquire energy from the sun and decrease entropy and even increase their order and complexity without violating the Second Law. (Prigogine, 1972 "Thermodynamics of Evolution") .."The fact that its true or not has nothing to do a person believing it."...thats my point. The.."I don't believe in science"..and " circumstantial evidence was not a valid method to prove things by" must simply be a misunderstanding of who posted what..I just pointed them out because you put quotes around them and I thought you meant that I posted them.. ..if I didn't say them and you didn't say them, who did? As stated, I don't place myself in the "evolution only" group. I agree with you about science being at a loss so far in explaining what consciousness is..I mentioned this before.

Paul, I agree with shorter posts...I still find this interesting and hope no one is becoming offended. The quotes you use "I don't believe in science" and "circumstantial evidence was not a valid method to prove things by"...are not contained in my post...THAT takes things out of context. If God appeared to me. I would have to accept it as true. Of course I could prove my past posts were written by me without resorting to circumstantial evidence. " I can't say that religion by itself has proven the existence of it (a creator) because belief is different for everyone"..... You seamlessly changed the focus from one of "proof"..to "belief"..and then, as I suggested in my past post, leave the burden of proof in the hands of someone with a different view..this makes little sense.. " I have offered many things in my previous posts as evidence" Feelings and personal interpretations of personal experiences don't constitute even circumstantial evidence..they can be "real" to an individual and have profound life changing effects but don't by themselves constitute factual statement...and they don't need to ,to be a positive force in life...to reiterate a previous point. "if we have a "null start" how can evolution have an edge?" ..you seemed to think that constituted convoluted reasoning... my fault for not being more clear..by a "null start" I meant if there were two opposing views and both started from scratch in making their case and only allowed facts on the table..no feelings..no.. some one say it long ago's... I think that evolution would have an edge. "when you argue FOR evolution"... AGAIN..I am not making a case for evolution... in my very last post I stated."I'll agree that science hasn't found all the answers to conclusively prove evolution"...did you miss that part? Your analogy of Hitler is what I'm talking about...at first there was reluctance for countries to get involved, I believe because it would have meant having to change their actions and what they became comfortable with believeing...i.e. if we ignore the facts we won't have to accept we must do something... it was accepting the facts and the truth that gave the strenght to do what was right....the bad guys were the ones who refused to accept reality and held on to faith in Hilters dream. Do I have an alternative to evolution/creation? No..like I stated I think there are holes in both..but when someone suggests the the case IS settled..all learning stops.

Hi Paul, You shouldn't believe my past posts were written by me, and thats at the core of my posts..don't believe something just because someone says its so...are you demanding the same level of proof of your own conclusions?...I could prove its me typing these posts..I could make a video of me typing these posts and then pushing the "submit reply" button...but then how do you know the person typing is "Dale"...well I could send a copy of my birth certificate notorizied documents of testimony and pictures of family..etc. A lot of trouble to prove the obvious...claiming that I'm me is by no means a extaordinary claim...claiming there's proof of a creator is..extaordinary claims require extraordinary proof...would you agree? I'll agree that science hasn't found all the answers to conclusively prove evolution ....religion hasn't proven the existence of a creator....would you agree?....so in a sense that makes it even. would you agree with that?...if you do we have a "null start"..all preconcieved notions are off the table and the the case for both views starts with rebuilding the case for each view based in the facts..if this is done it seems like evolution has an edge. There stills seem to be convoluted reasoning going on..maybe I'm wrong but thats the way it seems. Paul, I haven't made up my mind and have stated this many times in my previous posts.....but it seems to me that you have...the reasonings are just becoming too complacated and convoluted in my opinion. You claim the shortcomings of science .....but use it as proof when it suits you ....i.e. useing the law of thermal dynamics...yet seem to claim that it is me useing circumstantial evidence to state my view...You're not?? fill me in please! AGAIN it doesn't seem like simply stating something that is written by the believers of a certain position is proof of anything but their position... it doesn't seem unusal to me at all that 3 books written by believers in creation would contain almost identical story lines...they all come from the same geographical area. The end result of the reasoning of belivers seem to be to throw the burden of proving THEIR position on the backs of the people that hold the opposite veiw....i.e. YOU prove MY position is true!! There were many stories of similar nature...heres one..see if you can guess who the story is about.. "In the first century of the Common Era, there appeared at the eastern end of the Mediterranean a remarkable religious leader who taught the worship of one true God and declared that religion meant not the sacrifice of beasts but the pratice of charity and piety and the shunning of hatred and enmity. He was said to have worked miracles of goodness, casting out demons, healing the sick,raising the dead. His exemplary life led some of his followers to claim he was a son of God, though he called himself a son of a man. Accused of sedition against Rome, he was arrested. After his death, his disciples claimed he had risen from the dead, appeared to them alive, and ascended to heaven.....who was this man?...His name was Apollonius of Tyana."...how many thought it was Jesus? Who ever claimed that wood sand wire paint etc. could turn themselves in to a house ...I missed that post. Where in the Bible does it recommend a challenge and question its word?...I'm just trying to understand..

Hi Scott, Thanks. I hope you don't think i singled out your post..like I said it was the only one I could see while typing a response. I completely accept as fact that your beliefs and faith are creating a better person of you.. and that positive effect will spread to others because of your actions. I'm just asking anyone for a little insight into how this works and more importantly why people think that this is the only valid view to base one life on.. You and others have said things similar to ..God has proven His existence to me in many, many ways.... and then imply that none of the many, many ways can be explained... how can this be??anything that someone has a firm grasp of can be explained....Faith is what God asks of us..... because we're talking about Christianity I'll use the Bible...where in the Bible does it say that?.....and if one can find a verse that supports it if intrepreted in a certain way..how does that make it true?..again it seems that presumptions are stated as fact when that may not be the case....a lack of faith "is the exact thing that makes it hard to argue the existense of God and His word."..like its a special case..... in ANY difference of opinion its not a lack of faith in the other persons view that makes it difficult ( if there was faith in the validity of the other persons view, there would be no difference of opinion in the first place), ..its that the person that holds the opposing view doesn't think the other view is supported by fact...and that is what makes it difficult to accept...To function from this basis is normal...we all do it.. " There's plenty of evidence for the existence of God and His communication with mankind".... like what?....I don't "reject" the idea..."reject" implies a blanket refusal to accept a different view....I'm all ears....when a persons stance starts to run out of gas, the usual response is to just quit trying..so I just had to respond because I believe there's value in questioning assumptions.

Scott I'm not Dale..he quit posting...I really want to be able to connect the dots in this type of reasoning and maybe understand its ability to convince people that the reasoning isn't convoluted..if someone can help me understand how it works I'd appreciate it. It seems like most of the replies in favor of higher powers take the same tack and the way I read it, it goes like this...make a statement in a way that implies its true and then extrapolate on it and if the fact is unprovable one way or the other ..all the better...OR.. respond to a statement that no one made and build a case on that. Scott..as I'm typing this, your post is the only one I can see so allow me to use it as an example...."This is a classic legal response, that there is no higher power than the laws of man"...who said that?? or "There is also a higher law, that is the law of God"...how do you arrive at the conclusion that this is a accurate statement?...or "trying to say that the laws of man supplant the laws of God is a fallacious argument"...I don't recall anyone making that argument.... I started this post by saying.."I'm not Dale..he quit posting"....do you believe its true just because I said it..or would you require proof before you could accept it?

...O.K....really..no kidding now ...THIS is the last post... Mike, thanks for the response, I do appreciate it..though it may not seem like it...my point has always been that things are in constant change and because of that we must be open to accepting change in our understanding of how things work and their underlying forces..though I agree that fact is fact... what we accept as fact must be open to change if and when we are faced with new information....so "God either exists or doesn't"...maybe or maybe not..."God" may be a force or phenomenon we don't understand or are capable of understanding yet..or maybe its all bull and we have to accept that....we'll only get there if we're open to possibily accepting the need for a total change in the way we view life....this applies to firm believers and firm non-believers. A "believer" who refuses to accept new information lives with a blinding agenda...A "non-believer" who refuses to accept new information also lives with a blinding agenda.

...o.k....o.k... I swear this is my last post on the subject..but the quality of reasoning is taking a nosedive and that is usually a sign of groping for validation... it seems that the fault in reasoning comes from first stating a false interpretation of someone elses point and then simply replacing it with a reasoning that can be argued...this can go on forever. Mike you state that John is useing the hipocrisy and failings of man to invalidate religion.... to me it seems that John is useing the hypocrisy and failing of CERTAIN interpretations of religion to invalidate the absolute rule of religion. And we're back to "either".."or"...."If I claim to be a Christian and yet murder people, does that make Christianity false? Hardly"...and I agree..the problem is to then assume that the direct opposite is the only valid option when in fact there are many other possibilities... If I claim to be a Christian and not only not murder people, but adhere to all Christian laws...does that make Christianity true?...Hardly...it just means your a good Christian..Why is this so hard for some to grasp?? You admit you can't "prove" God exists or any religion is true or false... so whats left is simply belief and not fact..not to speak for John, but for myself.....thats the only point I was trying to get across. Again useing the method of stating as fact something that is false makes it easy to argue against but none the less it remains a false premise....logic..and may I add reasoning ..is by no means a "small box"...does anyone really believe it is?..logic and reason guide almost all things in our lives...its taken us from caves and raw meat to "smart" homes..cured many diseases... engineered the machines of our lifes and taken us to space..none of these things are the product of clinging to belief when fact proved them wrong. You apply the same technique in misintrepretating another fact and then easily supporting your argument..you state . "our concept of "logic" and what is "possible" is so limited"....There seems to be little proof of that being true...what was scientific "fantasy" 10 yrs ago is surpassed by reality now, and we seem to be on the threshold of a quantum leap in applications. "Gods ways are not our ways"...is the kind of thing a shaman might say.

John, You sum it up really well..I'll take your advise and apply some common sense to myself and take the circles in for a landing.lol For some reason I've really enjoyed these discussions and the views that were expressed showed the strength of peoples convictions and I think John capped it ..whatever your beliefs are try to be the best example of them you can be! Dale

Hi Paul, I guess these ideas could go on for ever....I don't really understand why. Alot of time people present arguments by making a statement in a way that implies fact and then extrapolate on it...whether the statment is fact or not.....people don't ALWAYS excuse their actions to find easy ways out. Hypothetical questions are a valuable tool though...here's one.. would you steal to save your childs life?..heres another...would you send your child to hell for breaking one of your rules? the Q'uran..is a book ..it can't kill anyone..but blind adherence to a particular interpretation of it can cause people to...and thats why reason is so important in any religion.

Paul, How does passing on a little good and a little caring minimize religion? and how does it exclude a relationship with God?? My comment about the commandment being relative was in context of the claim of them being absolute...no exceptions. thats an extraordinary claim and an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. They would have to apply to everyone..always. Your example of just solving problems differently...go to an emergency room etc. is very unrealistic. If the laws pertain to everyone, they pertain to everyone and thats the problem..We use a very unrealistic view of reality.. the are 6+ BILLION people on the planet and only 8-9% of that number live with even some of the options that we do in the US. What would you think of stealing something to save the life of your child if you were an African 50 mile from nowhere with no way to travel??..go to the emergency room? ..Paul..no offence intended but the ...go to work and buy your medicine is ...welll...I don't know. I really think that we have no real sense of how others live. Again there seems to be black or white... this or that thinking going on. Of course there is good and bad logic, but theres all types of logic. its not just one big chunk.. but I would bet that the "Good" kind is the result of evaluating things honestly and as accurately as possible based in past experience and observation and the "Bad" kind is based more in wishful thinking. An example might be a chronic gambler who devised a system based in his own "logic". Why do you say that logic comes from the ten commandments?? whats the connection? The punishment for useing bad logic is usually found in the result of using bad logic. lol. In EARLY America it was against the law to a member of some religions. Hitler used a very effective and cruel form of military logic..but this is no judgement of logic in general..same with Saddam, Romans, Chinese, and us yes US in the treatment of the Indians and others. Theres no way of telling what MIGHT be if something was or wasn't done..one can only speculate. ..just a note..I'm not a believer in all things logical I just think that its a valuble tool in life.

Cleveland Mobile, I think your post is refreshing and to the point. For some reason when people discuss religion or politics..things get polarized and the point of the discussion get lost in I'm right ..you're wrong.. forget specifics or talking points.. What is THE point of religion ? I think you nailed it... try to pass on a little good and a little caring evey day...

Hi Mike, I don't really understand why you would think that judging a person by seeing what they do is faulty just stating it is doesn't make it so...what other way is there?? blinding oneself to what is obviously happening in front of your own eyes or walking around being suspicious of everyone doesn't seem like a BETTER idea.The misunderstanding may be because it seems from your comment " You're judging only by what you see" in a sort of fleeting, easy to be fooled snapshot sort of way is what I meant. Thats not what I meant..thats not how human interaction works for the most part. Seeing is the first base step, after that the "seen" information is interperted by a huge data bank of past infomation, experiences,situations,etc. that judge the accuracy of what we're being shown, or told or whatever...i.e. is whats being presented to me accurate? All I'm saying is that for the most part this system of judging is accurate...the con's and scam artists are not that prevelent, and that is a good thing. I'll bet you use this system to good result everyday from deciding whether the sales pitch on the cleaner you may use will be as good as it says and you make the judgment based on past experience, information from other people or knowledge of the ingredients on the lable.....if your pw ing something, your useing your eyes and past experience to use a technique that works...and if someone trys to tell you to use a method that you know will tear up the wood..I'll bet you won't do it even if the information come from a top selling book. One of the interesting but often overlooked things that happens in these type of disscussions is the "pick and choose" way ideas are used to prove a point...if a bit of information is used to discredit the opposite view ( the reason I believe Robert states the importance of absolutes)... the information should also be valid in disproving identical reasonings. If I misinterpretated "thou shall not kill" and kill means murder..my misstake but it doesn't invalidate the point of relativity of the commandments.. if you kill to save an innocent life, is it bad..if you steal to save a life is it bad? etc...if you would agree that it wouldn't be then you understand my point...if not there should be an explainable reason why it isn't..or so it would seem.

Jon, No fair asking a question and running away!! lol. What do you think?

Paul, I agree with what you're saying but the examples are not representative of the population as a whole....the molested child, the gangbangers, the Palistinians, etc. are products of either generations of deprivation, desperation.apathy,or conscious brainwashing...but alot of these situations exist because of belief. the belief that you have no right to question the way things are..the belief that God requires you to choose this over that.. or the belief that life can be no other way so you just give in. The real question which we'll never know the answer to is even among the gangbanger and molesters, how many honestly would choose that life over a better one. Even among the groups we sterotype.. the Palestianians, Muslums, etc. what percentage are actually terrorists? Again I think direct experience is for the most part accurate..its too easy to imagine how things are, and imagination is rarely a accurate representation of anything.