Well, of course...
 

On 2/18/2014 11:14 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/18/14, 11:01 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/18/2014 10:08 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/18/14, 9:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:27:17 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/18/14, 8:54 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:15:48 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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?

Wow, a little touchy on that one, eh?

I didn't realize it was so sensitive an issue.



Just thought you might be interested in being less of a snarkass.

You apparently don't consider your anti-religion posts to be a tad
'snarkass'? Are you not trying to
antagonize folks with that crap?



I'm not aware of the religion of any poster here. I recall you said once
you used to be a Roman Catholic, or maybe I am just imagining that.

I am aware that some posters here claim to be Christians, but I'm not
sure what that means. For some of them, it certainly doesn't mean they
follow the teachings of Jesus. Is Christian a religion? I remember one
of my Southern friends telling me that Catholics weren't Christians. I
thought that was absurd. There are so many different Christian sects, I
can't tell one from another. At least with Jews, there are only three
main and a number of really minor varieties. :)

In any event, I have no dispute with those who either believe in or
don't believe in a creator. No one can prove there is one or there isn't
one, so I see no reason to argue over that.


To me a Christian is one who fundamentally believes in the concept of
the Holy Trinity, meaning Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Basically, it's a
belief that Christ was the Son of God. *How* a person practices
Christianity is a whole other matter. It ranges from beliefs that faith
will protect you from snake bites to giving up sex for Lent. Roman
Catholics put much more emphasis on the "Virgin Mary" than Protestant
sects do. A Fundamentalist Baptist tends to interpret the Bible
literally as opposed to symbolically. That's why you really can't
lump all those who claim to be Christians into one basket based on the
execution of their beliefs.

My apologies to John for use of asterisks and quotes for emphasis.

:-)






I suppose everyone's mileage differs. To me, being a Christian means
following the teachings attributed to Jesus, especially as they pertain
to the treatment of others.

Since the bible, *all* of it, was written down by men, sometimes long
after events and tales in it took place, the idea of taking it literally
to me is beyond the pale.


If you faithfully followed all the teachings attributed to Jesus, as
represented in the bible, you'd be locked up in prison for many years.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/18/2014 11:56 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:33:04 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Science often unearths more questions than it answers.

That is the point.
Science is supposed to ask questions, not answer them.
Once the question is answered it becomes technology and science
tackles the new issues that come up from that.


True but there is a difference between theoretical science and applied
science. Applied science is the implementation of scientifically
derived knowledge. I suppose you could also call it technology or
engineering.

Well, of course...
 

In article , says...

On 2/17/2014 3:09 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/17/14, 2:50 PM, Tim wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:56:24 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:



You are the one doing the leaping. I said the "idea" was deeply

religious, and it is. It was part of religious teaching for thousands of

years via various religions. Whether today's religions teach it is

something I don't know.


How many 'thousands' of years are you talking? and which
civilizations? I know the early Egyptians(Pyramid builders) as well as
the early Jews (Cabala studiers) didn't think that way..

Concerning this being a religious 'theory' that's been taught for
'thousands' of years? I really think you're projecting again....

But if that's really what and how you wish to believe, then more power
to you...



Oh, well, then I guess you are discounting the trials and tribulations
of one Galileo Galilei. He was an advocate of heliocentrism (Earth and
planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the
Solar System) and was investigated for it by an inquisition, which said
he was wrong and heliocentrism was contrary to the bible. He was
forbidden from lecturing that the earth was *not* the center of the
solar system, and later he was forced under pain of death to recant his
teachings. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

So, if you go from your starting point (ancient Egyptians) to Galileo,
that would be thousands of years, and that there are still people who
believe the earth is still the center of the solar system is without
question a testament to the thousands of years of religious misinformation.

After he died, Galileo, one of the greatest thinkers of mankind, was
denied an honored resting place because of religious ignorance.



Then there are some who believe *they* are the center of the universe.

I am the center of my universe.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:

Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?

Yes

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3

Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible...

Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather
is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.

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

1990...

C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate
application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take
relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate
to infer that the whole field is unreliable.

As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some
are useful."

The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:

Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?

Yes

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3

Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not
infallible...

Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather
is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.

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


1990...

C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate
application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take
relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate
to infer that the whole field is unreliable.

As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some
are useful."

The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.



There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be
self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite
another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some
sort of "alternative."

Well, of course...
 

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote:

On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:



Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?



Yes



http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3



Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not

infallible...



Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather

is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.



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





1990...



C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate

application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating



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



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html



It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take

relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate

to infer that the whole field is unreliable.



As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some

are useful."



The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.







There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be

self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite

another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some

sort of "alternative."


Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?"

Can I be the first to sign the guest book?

?;^ )

Well, of course...
 

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 1:40:55 AM UTC-6, thumper wrote:
On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:



Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?



Yes



http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3



Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not infallible...



Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather

is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.



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



1990...



C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate

application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating



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



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html



It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take

relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate

to infer that the whole field is unreliable.



As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some

are useful."



Thumper, I'm not discounting anything you've said.For the most part I'm in agreement. The problem that I have is when people boast that if science can't or at least hasn't prove something then that concept is total nonsense.



The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.

But till has a looooong way to go.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote:

On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:



Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?



Yes



http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3



Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not

infallible...



Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather

is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.



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





1990...



C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate

application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating



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



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html



It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take

relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate

to infer that the whole field is unreliable.



As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some

are useful."



The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.







There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be

self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite

another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some

sort of "alternative."


Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?"

Can I be the first to sign the guest book?

?;^ )


There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of
evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion.

Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any*
evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond
religious "belief"?

You might enjoy skimming this:

http://tinyurl.com/mmqga

As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious"
believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push
those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et
cetera. Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place
in our public schools or public institutions or public government.

Well, of course...
 

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 7:58 AM, Tim wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:32:13 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 2:40 AM, thumper wrote:



On 2/17/2014 8:07 PM, Tim wrote:







Oh, I know the earth is much older than that. But is mankind?







Yes







http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/apr/29/fossils.evolution3







Carbon 14 *IS* the accepted science for research, but its not



infallible...







Science doesn't claim to be infallible or perfectly accurate but rather



is self correcting and tends get better with time and effort.







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











1990...







C14 dating has well known limitations and constraints for appropriate



application and *is not* the only accepted method of dating.







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio-carbon_dating







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







http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html







It is an unfortunately common (and dishonest) creationist tactic to take



relatively small scientific controversies or corrections and equivocate



to infer that the whole field is unreliable.







As one of my mentors once said "All simulations (models) are wrong, some



are useful."







The god of the gaps is shrinking slowly.















There's nothing but dishonesty in creationism. It's one thing to be



self-delusional and believe that sort of nonsense, and it is quite



another and dishonest to try to push it onto public school kids as some



sort of "alternative."





Great proclamation Harry! Interesting that Creationism is 'dishonest' but an evolutionary theory is taught as a proven fact. LOL! BTW, When you gonna start building the conscentration camps to hold the 'religiously insane?"



Can I be the first to sign the guest book?



?;^ )





There is tons of science underpinning evolution, but not a shred of

evidence that creationism is anything more than religious delusion.



Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any*

evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond

religious "belief"?


Nah, let you science prove it.


You might enjoy skimming this:



http://tinyurl.com/mmqga



As I have stated many times, I don't give a damn what "the religious"

believe in terms of their religion, so long as they don't try to push

those beliefs beyond themselves, their families, their churches, et

cetera.


Sure you do, Harry, Sure you do. That's why you bring it up in here. And that's why it agitates you.

Teaching or promoting of religious belief should have no place

in our public schools or public institutions or public government.

And that's how our government is set up to no be pro- any specific religion.

Nor anti- as well.

Well, of course...
 

On 2/19/14, 8:18 AM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:11:47 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:



Go ahead, *prove* a supreme being created the universe. Got *any*

evidence that will stand scientific scrutiny? Anything at all beyond

religious "belief"?


Nah, let you science prove it.



Yeah, right. There is no proof. There's nothing to it beyond religious
belief and faith, just as there is nothing more than that underpinning
creationism.