Volvokiller

I'm going to tend to agree with Ilya. I do not visit VS as much as I used to. From my point of view, the forums are overrun with posts about projectors and hids, how dark my tint should be, and Butt tickler threads of god knows what. At any given time there are multiple posts about putting 16ts on LPTs, speedtuning chips, where can I find a 19t, etc....

I also don't really like the way the site is run from an administrative standpoint. While I respect Charles' right to do what he wants with his site, I think it turns off some people, myself included. A good example of this is the for sale section. I don't like having to pay a supporting member fee to use certain features of the forum. Supporting the site should either be mandatory to sign up, or completely optional. Making me be a supporting member to use the for sale feature only turns me away. I don't think I am a cheap-jerk either. I've spent money on my cars and I've given money to Turbobricks over the years because they don't ask for it, or require it to use the forums to their full extent.

Perhaps I'm just getting grumpy in my old age (28). I do love Volvo's, what they stand for, and the fact that they are different. But the juvenile attitude here leaves me with the wrong taste in my mouth.

damn, you guys suck at tetris.

The mirror is calling.

You can't touch me.

Oh yeah, I forgot. I mean, I think you blew an intercooler hose when you tried to pass me. Yeah, that's better. :lol:

not to mention I kept punching the clutch to keep the tires spining and some lady pulled out in front of me... I will say that your car is pretty quick for a brokeback LPT.

Don't lie you just suck at shifting. :lol:

o RLY?

Ya RLY

Non-highway, through 1st and 2nd gear. I'm sure he'd leave me from a 50 roll....

Must be those heavy pegs :ph34r:

Where in the hell do you NW guys get all your $$? Are they giving it away up there? :lol:

I've had the 16t on my car for a year now. 15k miles, and no problems. IPD ECU for a 13g and still pig rich. At 12 lbs, Greg couldn't pull on me yesterday :P

Quite an impressive build. Us T-Brickers have been following the car for years. Regarding the powerplant - I was under the impression that the B204 was available in Italian markets in 740's only. A factory 2.0L 16v turbo designed to meet Italian regulations regarding engine size. I doubt he's still using a 2.0L block... do you know for sure Mike? Most 16vT builds use at least a B21/3E block, especially in Europe.

Perhaps not on a 97. People have used 16ts and T5 ecus on 98 lpts. There should be no issues.

FWIW - I ran both 315cc and 350cc injectors on my car with a wideband reader. The AFR's didn't change at all. Both still provided too much fuel under boost - a function of the ECU (IPD/TME) no doubt. However, duty cycle is an important variable in injector performance. An injector running at 80% is providing a much more uniform spray than one running 100%. I went with the 350's in my car.

Sweet. I touched it. Suck it everyone!

Well, accept for Chuck. He's obviously touched it too.

I'm going to guess that it's not Volvo NA that's backing this year. Either way, I wish them the best of luck for 2006. Hopefully a different set of decision makers is in place for this season.

That trunklid is from the Volvo sponsored S60 challenge series cars. They have nothing in common with the SPEED WC S60 GT cars. Atspeed has a buch of bodywork from these challenge cars laying around for some reason.

The Catholic Church IMO is a complete mess and ruined by the greed of man.

You'll find no argument with me there. However the basic beleif strucuture amongst all Christian faiths is pretty consistant.

"There isn't much you can say that will make me believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God"

Does this mean if we say the right thing then you will believe? Jesus refused to prove himself to the Pharasies when they demanded for him to prove he was the messiah. And somehow they failed to see all the people he healed and ministered too. Until it was too late. When jesus died on the cross the veil was torn into and It was said "Truely this was the Son of God". I beg you not to wait, dont put this off... at least open your mind and read some scripture and let him talk to you. One day you and I will have to give account for all of our time on this earth. You name will only appear in the book of life if you put your faith in Jesus. Or you will suffer eternity seperated from him.

"The fact that nearly every major religion has some version of a book inspired by Divinity leads me to conclude that it is part of the religious formula."

We have the holy bible as an "instruction manual" of sorts... I believe that the bible is here so we have it to refer too in all of our affairs. There is no formula... God gave us the bible so that his word is written, and unchanged(I believe), not just remembered. I could see the bible being lost in translation or changing meaning or changing all together if man passed it down generation to generation thru spoken word. Like playing "Operator" the original meaning or word isnt always the same at the end of the line.

I was born into a Catholic family. I went to Catholic elementary school, high school, and got a scholarship to a Catholic university. I've taken every religion class there is from 1st grade to advanced theology. I went to church every Sunday for the first 20 years of my life. I've read or heard nearly every passage in the bible. Perhaps I misspoke before, there ISN'T anything you can tell me right now to change my belief that God is a human fabricatation, that the Bible was written by man to use to his historical advantage, and that although Jesus was a historical person, he is not the Son of God. I am comfortable in the life I have lead so far that I will be accountable for all of my actions, seperate from my beliefs when "judgement day" comes.

When I speak of the religious formula I am taking a broad look at all religions that exist in the world. Most have the same characteristics that comprise the formula. One is having an almighty power, be it singular or plural. Another is the belief that this higher power spawned the human race. A third is the existance of writings supposedly from this higher power that instruct humans how to live, and gives a history of their ancestors.

You refererance the game Operator in relation to how the Bible wasn't constructed. Some reasearch shows that infact, much of the old testament was recorded through spoken word for many years. Also, the New Testament was assembled three hundred years after the death of Christ. Thats like you gathering writngs and telling the story of Joe the Pilgrim tomorrow. I'm telling you, if a concerted effort was made by our government today to turn Benjamin Franklin into a divine figure in 2000 years it would be hard to dispute.

Volvokiller, I apologize for the comment I made previously, I will try to stick to the issues:

1. Your 2nd paragraph from above quote. Yes, you can hold US ANCESTORS responsible for slavery. My point was that you cannot hold Americans TODAY responsible for slavery laws 200 years ago. Agree or disagree? If you agree, then therefore, you cannot hold Christians TODAY for slavery laws 3000 years ago. If you disagree, and you hold Christians today responsible for slavery laws 3000 years ago, that would mean you, presumably American are still responsible for slavery committed 200 years ago. Which do you choose?

I'm not sure we are looking at the same point. I'm not saying Christians today should be condemned becasue the Isrealites held slaves. I agree that you cannot hold people acountable today for the actions of their forefathers. What I am saying/trying to say is that since the actions of the ancestoral Isrealites were supposedly endorsed by God - ie written in the Bible, it stands to reason that either God was wrong or he changeds his mind based on the custom of the time - hardly Godlike.

did you even read what i wrote ?

Not until after I posted. So let me see if I get what you are saying. God allows man free will. Original sin, Adam and Eve, etc. So since the Isrealites wanted to enslave neighboring people and have a King, God says ok, but doesn't agree with it.

Now it seems to me reading the passages about having slaves that if this is the inspired word of God then he IS endorsing the use of slaves, even outlining the guidelines for which one can obtain and keep them. Isn't it more likely that man created this wording so that they seemed just in their actions?

I'm tiring of this conversation, not becasue I feel I am right and you are wrong just that I think much gets lost in the translation from ideas to words to keyboard. There isn't much you can say that will make me believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God as opposed to a book created by Man to guide early Jews in their beliefs. The fact that nearly every major religion has some version of a book inspired by Divinity leads me to conclude that it is part of the religious formula.

Volvokiller, you are so simple minded. I certainly do not have to disprove the earlier statement: "Religion is more present in undereducated and low-intelligence groups", whenever you post, you prove that this statement is wrong. (Just copying you, more emoticons mean that your arguments are stronger, right?)

Nobody said that it is okay to have slaves today if you release them in 7 years. But instruction like that during the days of Leviticus was a monumental difference compared to what was accepted as societal norm.

Wow, you really cut to the core. I guess I'm undereducated and have low intellegence because I used a lol smiley. I was only commenting on the fact that you contradicted two major beliefs in Christianity with one post! Allow me.

1. The Bible is inspired by God and considered God's Word.

2. God is omnipotent and infallible.

So if the Word of God condones slavery of other peoples from surronding nations, yet Christians today think slavery of others is wrong. Something doesn't gel. Either the Word of God is wrong, or Christians today are wrong. No?

You go on to say that no Christians would condone slavery yet you cannot hold the belief that our US ancestors who kept slaves were immoral. OF COURSE YOU CAN. Slavery of another no matter how nice you are, no matter how much respect you show, no matter if and when you release them is still WRONG. Disagree? Just becasue the custom is accepted doesn't mean the custom is moral.

This whole question of slavery points out the glaring concept (in my mind) that the Bible was constructed by man to incorporate God in his (man's) ideal, along with his (man's) beliefs and customs.

Please refer me to my other simple minded posts. I thought I made coherent and valid arguments.

Just a couple of points, it's not that simple as yes or no.

1. Is the US immoral today because at one time it was okay to treat blacks differently than whites? In fact it was okay in American history to own and trade slaves. Times have changed and now it is at least illegal to treat blacks differently but whether they are or not (treated differently) in reality, is another question. Most people would argue that though laws have changed, in essence, not much has. The movie 'Crash' is quite a provocative look at racism in America. My point is this: just because a country or a religion has had some laws in the past that appear to be discriminatory and then later on changed, it does not make that country or religion totally invalid today. No person of the Christian faith I know of today, thinks slavery is legitimate. Just as you can't hold present day US immoral for slavery in the past based on their history on this issue, you cannot conclude that the Christian faith is wrong based on the same grounds. Or if you do hold Christians responsible for slavery in the OT, then you should similarly, hold yourself responsible for the sordid history of US. Yes or no?

2. During the time of slavery in the US, there were stories of brave men who could not overturn the slavery law immediately and so, within those laws, they treated their slaves differently, with respect, fair provision, protection, and not abuse. I think we consider those examples as noble ones. Another illustration from history, WWII. Though some Germans could not overthrow the Nazis, there were many stories of Germans who treated Jewish people kindly, hid them, protected them, and fed them. Schlinder's List. If you cannot make a societal wrong, right immediately, then you have to be as moral/kind/loving as you can within those societal conditions. If you read Lev 25, and I'm hoping you did and not just quoting without reading, you will see that the law given then were for the people of God to be kind, generous, respectful to the slaves that they have. Eg. Every 7 years, they are to set them free. Lev 25:43, Show your fear of God by treating them well; never exercise your power over them in a ruthless way.

I hope the above helps to shed some insight on the whole discussion.

So the writings "instructed by God through the Holy Spirit" were wrong? So God was wrong? Interesting. So maybe its ok to have slaves so long as we treat them nice and let them go after 7 years? I don't think so.

You've dug quite a hole for your argument.

What I have the most difficult time with in evolutionary theory (and I remain open to this) is the change of one species to another, what some people call macro evolution. I still don't understand this and I'm not trying to be facicious (sp?). If humanity evolved from apes, then why are there still apes? If 4 legged amphibians came from snakes, then why are there still snakes? Presumably, the ones with variations that could not adapt to the environment should have died off, ie. not pass their variation through their genes to the next generation. The Darwinian principle says the strongest will survive, the ones who can't adapt dies. That's what I'm puzzled about.

Hey, something I can actually answer! As a Biology student, this kind of stuff was very interesting to me. Species evolve from one another through genetic mutation. When a positive genetic mutation proliferates through a given species it is often because it is beneficial to survival. Not all the time, however is it necessary to survival. Lets start with the hypothetical first ape. Over thousands of generations, mutations have occured and caused the proliferation of the different species - monkeys, baboons, apes, gorillas, humans, etc. Each is different, but they are not mutually exclusive. Just becasue monkeys are smaller, and have longer arms and legs doesn't mean they will be killed off, it means they thrive in the jungle swinging from tree to tree. Just because Gorillas are large and cumbersome doesn't mean they become extinct, it means they continue to live in their own way. With humans, you may have heard of the gradual progression through Cro-magnon and Neandrathal stages. Basically the theory is that as the human brain began to develop and distinguish itself from the ape brain, apes with these mutations began to evolve into humans as we know today. The reason the Cro-magnon and Neandrathals didn't survive is simply that the population wasn't strong enough to maintain itself.

The most common misconception about Darwins principle is that ONLY the strongest survive. Its not quite that simple. Each species that exists today does so becasue it has discoverd its niche in the world. Each time cells divide there are mutations. Some cause the death of the organism, some have no effect, some create positive changes. You just don't notice the evolution until you look at a large scale - ie thousands of years.

I think the Dead Sea Scrolls bridge that gap. The Bible we have today is consistent with those early manuscripts and show the events have not changed other than the language in which they were originally recorded.

I'll have to read up on it but my initial recollections are that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain documents mostly from BEFORE the time of Christ. I don't think the scrolls contained any gospels or writings of Jesus' apostles. Again, this is all recollection so I could be wrong.

If you believe in creation by God, then you have to accept the fact that this universe is not a product of

billions of years of evoulutiuon. Therefore, God made what we see today and much of it was "born" with

age. ie. Adam and Eve were not infants. Can God not create something that has "age"? The world we see was brought into existence with a purpose that is beyoud what we as humans can understand even with "faith".

A very nice point. I've never heard of it argued from that angle before. Very interesting.

While the bible may have been compiled and versed many years later into the book we have today, most all of the gospels and epistles were written by Christ's apostles and disciples within 30 years of his crucifixtion, some within 10 years. These letters and testimonies, which eventually became the core of the new testament, were eyewitness accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, given within the the same generation. My point is there were many non-believer's and those who hated Christianity at that time (not 300 years later) who wanted nothing better than to be able to refute the resurrection but were not able to do it.

I'm not discounting that the New Testament Gospels weren't written by people that knew Christ. I also understand that they were originally written close to his death. However, after hundreds of years, the likelihood of the stories being altered changes greatly, especially when you look at the corresponding rise of power the Church experienced. Why not juice up the stories of a guy who lived three Hundered years ago. Do you think if a concerted effort was put forth by people in power to take Benjamin Franklin and give him god-like divinity because of his many discoveries now, that in the year 2300 it would be easy to refute? How bout in the year 4000? We could turn Franklinism into the next Christianity.

Well done. I heart black. When's it leaving AtSpeed? I'd like to see it before it heads down to FL.

Chris

I don't like to type a lot but here are just a few ex:

1. Our sun is a star that scientists have been wacthing for over 100 yrs. and is shrinking by about one tenth % per century. Every hour the sun is shrinking by aprox. 2 feet. Of course 2 ft. isn't much when you consider the sun is nearly a million miles in diameter.

If you believe the sun's age is only 6,000 year's old (ceationism) then there's no real problem. In that time

the sun will have shrunk only about 2.4 %. Life on earth would go on quite fine. But if you believe the earth

and sun have been around for nearly five billion years (big bang theory), you have a problem.

If the sun existed only 250,000 yrs. ago it would have been double it's present diameter. At that size with the earth at it's present distance from the sun, it would have been too hot on earth for life to exist.

Thirty million years ago the sun's surface would have been touching the earth!

This is about as flawed logic as you can get. Do you know how insignificant 100 years is when looking at the history of planet Earth? Evolution and change isn't linear. You can't look at the sun shrinking 2ft in 2 hours and then apply it back thousands of years. Who's to say the sun wasn't shrinking 10,000 years ago? What if it was growing 100,000 years ago? You just don't know.

What you're proposing is like turning on Monday Night football last night, watching the Eagles complete a pass, consider that the trend of the night, and shutting it off and going to sleep. Who won? Oh the Eagles were completing passes so they muct have won. Oh wait, they lost 42-0.

Also, you say that according to your sun formula that 250,000 years ago life couldn't have existed on this planet. What about bone and rock samples that have been carbon dated far older than that? And Carbon dating IS a much more linear method of time tracking than the size of a star.

As for the "Messiah" There is only ONE and that is Jesus Christ who died for ALL of us so that all of our sins can be forgiven..... even non-believers, to go to heaven all you have to do is believe in your heart that Jesus Christ died for you and that he is your personal Lord and saviour. How easy is that ??? You have nothing to lose but everything to gain especially everlasting life in heaven. Penn & Teller can fake some of the things that Jesus may have done, or explain some of them, but they can not explain all. The one thing that they can not explain is how Jesus Christ died which was witnessed by countless people, then 3 days later rose from the dead and his tomb being empty, appeared before people such as his disciples and actually had them touch and inspect his wounds on his hands, feet, and the side of his chest. Then again witnessed by countless people rise up to the sky to heaven. God Bless.

If you are going to claim broad generalizations that the bible "sort of" got right as proof that it is inspired truth by God, then you also need to look at the historical context that the bible was created in. You are aware that the modern bible as we know it was comprised about 300 years after Christs death. Think about that, THREE HUNDRED YEARS. Its been argued that the development of the Christ Resurrection story was created to fuel persuasion to the Christian Faith around the same time that the Church had enormous oppurtunity to grab political power in the Roman Empire. As it turns out, this is exactly what historically happened. Around the time that the bible came to be, the Church grew powerful both in numbers and in political influence. Who's to say that political influence didn't sculpt the stories in the bible to their favor. Think anyone was alive 300 years later to refute or confirm the stories?

I'm with JC.

Viggen than is. Not the other guy.

Historically, many things can be proven. Jesus was a real person, the places he went were real, the people he knew were real. To go from there to "The Son of God" is a HUGE leap as far as I'm convinced. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools and universities and all I've learned has lead me away from religion.

People have been "inventing" religion and religious beliefs from the dawn of time. They can't all be right can they? There are thousands of religions in the world and each person believes his or her religion is the ultimate truth. I beleve, much as Kevin said, that people create an idea of God, or Allah, or whatever to comfort them in knowing that someday they are going to die. Others need the idea of a higher power to get them through tough times. Thats fine and dandy by me, I just don't subscribe.

My biggest problem with SOME religious people is their belief that you must believe in God to be a good person. I take large offense with this outlook. I can live a good life independent of belief in God, and my not believing in whatever it is that you do does not make me any less of a person. I especially hate when social and politcal issues become clouded with religious beliefs. I firmly believe in separation of church and state, and the right to be free from imposed religious beliefs.

If I win the lottery, rest assured, I WILL kill myself in one of these cars

Not likely. The cages are top notch. Well, unless you aren't wearing a harness. Then you'll definitely die.