|
Well, of course...
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! |
Well, of course...
|
Well, of course...
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. ; |
Well, of course...
|
Hey John???
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 15:32:39 -0500, KC wrote:
It doesn't take a PhD in Psychiatry or Psychotherapy to recognized that ...Dick has little man disease...:) Gotta' be the boss, gotta' mock and rub it in when someone makes a mistake, has to be the first to answer, has to be right... Has to go back and pat himself on the back for months when he gets a little internet victory... Like beating a dead horse.... sick dude. Look at yourself first Dick, ask youself why you have to "win" in an internet forum, why you have to go back over and over it again and agan?.... === Scott, with all due respect, you are totally out of line. Back off, take a few deep breaths and put your keyboard down for awhile. |
Well, of course...
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.... |
Well, of course...
On 2/17/2014 8:17 AM, KC wrote:
Well, the the 20 mph part might make things easier to compare I must admit.. Tell him to also ask his teacher about using weight shift instead of the bars to make the same maneuvers... I missed your reply on whether you throw your torso side to side to avoid a slight handlebar nudge or if you ride a custom bike without those needless handlebars? ;) |
Hey John???
On 2/17/2014 1:06 PM, KC wrote:
Dick took a shot based on a conversation about ammo we had last year. But I am sure you all will run with that anyway... Listen John. Here's the way I see it.. You know about some stuff, pretty good guy, but not really mechanical, harry, here cause he has a nasty inferior complex and needs to feel like he's beating folks up, dick the same, but doesn't have to lie cause he has plenty to flash around... the rest I am not getting into but the fact is, there is just nothing here for me anymore and even though I tried for 4 months to not be "that guy" anymore, it's obvious "that guy" is all you poor suckers are here for... Later.... Just because we have differing opinions doesn't mean it's personal. I might think you're half bat-**** delusional but it's based on what you've written, not what others say about you. That said we'd probably get along fine as neighbors. Don't sweat the small stuff. |
Well, of course...
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. |
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? |
Well, of course...
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. |
Well, of course...
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:36:19 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
snippage 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? That last will be true only if they are 'men' who are *not* made in God's image. *My* Mexicans? "You might consider finding something to do here other than to try to start arguments with people you don't like, eh?" |
Well, of course...
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 06:14:26 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:
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. Where? Show us. Is this your version of 'mainstream' religious thinking? |
Well, of course...
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. |
Well, of course...
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? |
Well, of course...
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. |
Well, of course...
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. :-) |
Well, of course...
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. |
Well, of course...
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:01:50 -0500, "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. :-) (No sweat. I'd not copyrighted that.) |
Well, of course...
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:08:45 -0500, 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. Then just what *is* the rationale behind your continuous anti-religious posting? If you are trying to learn something about the beliefs of others, just ask. I'm sure anyone who can do so will gladly answer your question. |
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...
|
Well, of course...
|
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com