On 2/17/2014 11:07 PM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 8:13:29 PM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/17/14, 8:39 PM, Tim wrote:

On Monday, February 17, 2014 6:55:47 PM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/17/14, 7:25 PM, Tim wrote:



On Monday, February 17, 2014 5:50:19 PM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:











Your attempts to deny the outright superstition that underpins religious







beliefs are laughable. How many millions of self-described Christians







believe in creationism and believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old?







Harry, you come on here to make some boastful statement about the views of a select few then you want to put me on trial for my thoughts?







Wow!











BTW-Ever hear of this guy? I figured a link would be sufficient.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristarchus_of_Samos















By select few, are you referring to the several Greeks I mentioned,



considered for thousands of years the greatest thinkers of their era?







Tell me you are not.



No, I am not. If I may make myself clear, you posted an article about people who believe the sun travels around the earth.I added the flat-earthers and the island-flipers. Those are the 'select few' I was regarding.







I don't want to put you on trial for anything. We were talking about



superstitions that underpin religion. Well, believing in creationism and



believing the earth is less than 10,000 years old is believing in



superstition.



To you it is. To many it's truth. I believe in science. But science is only limited to mans knowledge and understanding. Consider the flat-earther's plight. It was considered the truthful science of the day until Columbus (actually before him) proved that science different with newer science.Same with the earth-orbiters. The standard is held until adequately evidence has been found to prove the old school though as defective.



Pliney the Elder was a great philsophic naturalist and scholar- and he even believed in a singular "Universal Creator" . Science hasn't proven him wrong to this day. Now when Science does prove differently, I'll believe that science. Believe it or not, I am an objectionable person, but until science proves different, I'll hold to what I believe is true.





Thank goodness for Edwards v. Aguillard.



Thank goodness for the 1st. Amendment!









That the earth is more than 10,000 years old is scientifically provable,

and evolution is science, too.

Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind? Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible...

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us...on-dating.html

And I admire Albert Einstein's genius when he developed his theory of relativity. Amazing that a hundred years ago, being armed with a brain, an imagination and a chalk board he was dead on! But in the last few years, though his theory is still a standard, his calculations are being scrutinized due to modern scientific techniques.

http://gajitz.com/was-einstein-wrong...t-be-constant/

Another thing. His theory is light travels 186000 mi. per second. why not 186,243.94 MPS? Why is accuracy only limited to 'thousands?" When you consider 'millions' of years at stake, at least Albert was more accurate with relativity theories than carbon 14 dating can be.

You are asking science to prove

superstition in the existence of a creator. ;


Why not? You are stating that because science *cannot* provide evidence of a 'creator' then a creator doesn't exist. When science *CAN* prove there *IS NOT* a Divine Creator- I'll believe that science. Until then I'm absolutely satisfied in my beliefs.

Pretty simple really....



Science often unearths more questions than it answers.