Well, of course...
 

On 2/17/14, 9:41 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:22:44 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/17/14, 9:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:29:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I am not sure of any wide spread religious belief that the earth is at
the center of the solar system.
I think you are just calling out the wide spread ignorance that is
coming out of our school system.

They may have heard something about astronomy in elementary or middle
school but they quickly forgot it.



You think such foolishness springs *spontaneously* from the minds of the
badly educated? I don't. I think it is taught...at home and among those
with fundamentalist beliefs.

Of course you do but do you actually have any basis in fact beyond
your prejudice?

I know a few people who believe in creation and that the earth is 8000
years old but they still agree the solar system revolves around the
sun.


So, they got one out of three right. Great.

It is the one you are talking about


It's not the only one I was talking about, and it isn't the point. The
point was that the sort of ignorance under discussion, e.g., the earth
is less than 10,000 years old, is taught at home or at a religious
institution or gathering. These superstitious concepts aren't ideas that
spontaneously pop into someone's head.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/17/14, 9:46 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:22:44 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/17/14, 9:19 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:29:20 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I am not sure of any wide spread religious belief that the earth is at
the center of the solar system.
I think you are just calling out the wide spread ignorance that is
coming out of our school system.

They may have heard something about astronomy in elementary or middle
school but they quickly forgot it.



You think such foolishness springs *spontaneously* from the minds of the
badly educated? I don't. I think it is taught...at home and among those
with fundamentalist beliefs.

Of course you do but do you actually have any basis in fact beyond
your prejudice?

I know a few people who believe in creation and that the earth is 8000
years old but they still agree the solar system revolves around the
sun.


So, they got one out of three right. Great.

Hey, FOAD, what's with all the asterisks now? Are you trying to emphasize the *O*, and the *A*, or
what?


You might consider finding something to do here other than to try to
start arguments with people you don't like, eh? What's it to you whether
I use asterisks, commas, or nothing at all between the letters?

Well, of course...
 

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

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....


Simple indeed, especially since no one can prove or will be able to
prove the existence or non-existence of a creator. All there is is
superstition and "faith." Do you think someone is going to uncover a
manual in the creator's handwriting or that you'll hear a voice coming
out of the sky? Note that I am not saying a creator does not exist. I'm
saying that existence of a creator cannot be proved or disproved. For
those who believe in such an existence, it can only be believed on the
basis of religious faith and superstition.

Someday, perhaps, we'll encounter aliens who do not look like us. I'm
not referring to John Herring's Mexicans, but to beings from another
solar system. There goes the "man is made in god's image" nonsense, eh?

There's plenty of science available that indicates homo sapiens was
around a couple of hundred thousand years ago and became behaviorally
modern many tens of thousands of years ago. In the speed of light in
a vacuum, Einstein developed a theory to account for it. He didn't have
a lightspeed speedometer. His theory has been proven to be incredibly
accurate via measurement.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/18/14, 4:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/17/2014 11:07 PM, Tim wrote:




Science often unearths more questions than it answers.

Isn't that one of the points of "doing" science?

Well, of course...
 

On 2/18/2014 6:46 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/18/14, 4:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/17/2014 11:07 PM, Tim wrote:




Science often unearths more questions than it answers.

Isn't that one of the points of "doing" science?


Indeed.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/18/2014 6:46 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/18/14, 4:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/17/2014 11:07 PM, Tim wrote:




Science often unearths more questions than it answers.

Isn't that one of the points of "doing" science?



It would really be interesting to be around 100 or 200 years from now
and be able to look back at commonly accepted beliefs held today. I'll
betcha many things we subscribe to today will be radically changed.

According to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, we now create as much information
every two days as we did from the dawn of man through 2003. Granted,
much of it is meaningless but that's still a lot of data.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/18/14, 7:35 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/18/2014 6:46 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/18/14, 4:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/17/2014 11:07 PM, Tim wrote:




Science often unearths more questions than it answers.

Isn't that one of the points of "doing" science?



It would really be interesting to be around 100 or 200 years from now
and be able to look back at commonly accepted beliefs held today. I'll
betcha many things we subscribe to today will be radically changed.

According to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, we now create as much information
every two days as we did from the dawn of man through 2003. Granted,
much of it is meaningless but that's still a lot of data.





What? Tweets are meaningless? The horror of it!

Well, of course...
 

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 5:36:19 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:


Simple indeed, especially since no one can prove or will be able to

prove the existence or non-existence of a creator.

Good to see you're admitting finally admitting that, Harry.


All there is is

superstition and "faith." Do you think someone is going to uncover a

manual in the creator's handwriting or that you'll hear a voice coming

out of the sky? Note that I am not saying a creator does not exist.


That's the plan isn't it? We've spent the world debt over and over to see if there is life forms on other planets and looking for 'Higher Intelligence" to meet our understanding, or satisfaction as it may be...

I'm

saying that existence of a creator cannot be proved or disproved.

ok.

For

those who believe in such an existence, it can only be believed on the

basis of religious faith and superstition.



Is that bad?


Someday, perhaps, we'll encounter aliens who do not look like us. I'm

not referring to John Herring's Mexicans, but to beings from another

solar system. There goes the "man is made in god's image" nonsense, eh?


Nonsense? It's not proven to be nonsense by any scientific data. where do you come up with this 'nonsense' anyhow?


There's plenty of science available that indicates homo sapiens was

around a couple of hundred thousand years ago and became behaviorally

modern many tens of thousands of years ago.


Do they look like humans?



In the speed of light in

a vacuum, Einstein developed a theory to account for it. He didn't have

a lightspeed speedometer.

How could he tell what speed light travels? he obviously estimated.

His theory has been proven to be incredibly

accurate via measurement.

no doubt, but it's being proven to be off too.

Well, of course...
 

On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 6:35:43 AM UTC-6, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/18/2014 6:46 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/18/14, 4:33 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

On 2/17/2014 11:07 PM, Tim wrote:









Science often unearths more questions than it answers.



Isn't that one of the points of "doing" science?







It would really be interesting to be around 100 or 200 years from now

and be able to look back at commonly accepted beliefs held today. I'll

betcha many things we subscribe to today will be radically changed.

I couldn't agree more, Rich.



According to Google CEO Eric Schmidt, we now create as much information

every two days as we did from the dawn of man through 2003. Granted,

much of it is meaningless but that's still a lot of data.

A physicist told me in 1973 that the center of what was known then to the discovery of electricity was approx. 1967.

That was then. and this is now...

Well, of course...
 

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 21:13:29 -0500, 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. You are asking science to prove
superstition in the existence of a creator. ;

Yo, FOAD (or is it ESAD today), what 'religion' believes the earth is 10,000 years old. You keep
saying that, but have never provided any proof that this is mainstream religious thinking. There are
folks out there who believe eating humans will make you live longer and have a better sex life.

In your study, the question was asked about belief in the 'big bang theory'. About 61% or the
respondents did not believe in it. Well, according to your 'beliefs', well over half the population
must be pretty stupid, no? And you know there are a bunch of liberals in that 61%, don't you?