298 Million Yr Old Forest Found

Off Topic
261

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally would find living in a world with the assumption that chaos just accidentally threw it together to be pretty un-fulfilling. I am glad I didn’t make that choice.
[/quote]

There is no CHOICE involved, you…-bite on tongue-!

Let’s see,
“I don’t wanna live in a world where X died and I’m not a superhero, so guess what- I’ll just BELIEVE that”.

We have a mind that is capable of reasoning.
That only works when we constantly try to map our subjective reality to an objective idea of reality -
as precisely as we honestly manage to!

“Religion” (btw, this is just a very weak and vague concept; it’s practically unfit for a real discussion which borders philosophy; it shouldn’t be treated as more then a lemma) really managed to introduce a legion of strawmen to obfuscate open, rational inquiry in modern human societies.

Sometimes T-Nation makes me sad.

262

[quote]orion wrote:
And again:

Galileo was not prosecuted for teaching that the earth revolved around the sun.

That was taught, as a theory, all over Europe by lots of people, even in Christian colleges and universities.

What he has prosecuted for was being an obnoxious asshole that made as many enemies as he possibly could just because he was lucky and hit paydirt with this new “telescope” thingy he, um, appropriated from a Dutchman and demanding that the church reinterpreted scripture so as to fit his theory WHICH HE COULD NOT PROVE.

When he then, finally, also directly attacked one of his long lasting allies which just so happened to be THE FUCKING POPE, then he got… house arrest.
[/quote]

Heliocentrism was allowed to be taught as a theory as long as it remained one. Galileo’s asshole rep was earned in part because he was the first to state it as fact. He was prosecuted by the church, but was opposed by a large portion of the scientific community of the day who held true to the idea that the Earth was the center of the known universe. That’s why he met opposition on all sides. It was about far more than which orbited which.

He stood trial for heresy, but it wasn’t because he attacked the Pope: his Popeishness asked Galileo to add his views to his newly completed book. Galileo complied and put the Pope’s words in the mouth of a character called Simplicio. Simplicio was supposed to be named after an Aristotelian philosopher and Galileo mentioned this in his preface. The character represents the argument for geocentrism.

Unfortunately for Galileo, the name ‘Simplicio’ had negative connotations and his enemies in court suggested to the Pope that Galileo was trying to make a fool of him. That didn’t help, but the court record shows that Galileo was directly accused of opposing scripture by way of his support of heliocentrism.

Galileo was initially sentenced to indefinite imprisonment. This was shortly after reduced to house arrest, but the initial sentence is what it is.

None of this really matters: he was right.

263

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
I personally would find living in a world with the assumption that chaos just accidentally threw it together to be pretty un-fulfilling. I am glad I didn’t make that choice.
[/quote]

There is no CHOICE involved, you…-bite on tongue-!

Let’s see,
“I don’t wanna live in a world where X died and I’m not a superhero, so guess what- I’ll just BELIEVE that”.

We have a mind that is capable of reasoning.
That only works when we constantly try to map our subjective reality to an objective idea of reality -
as precisely as we honestly manage to!

“Religion” (btw, this is just a very weak and vague concept; it’s practically unfit for a real discussion which borders philosophy; it shouldn’t be treated as more then a lemma) really managed to introduce a legion of strawmen to obfuscate open, rational inquiry in modern human societies.

Sometimes T-Nation makes me sad.
[/quote]

Like I said, the superiority complex exuded is why there can’t be discussion openly…at least not in this forum.

I will say that you are a little off if you think there isn’t a choice involved in the belief of God or atheism.

You would only have a point if screaming an agnostic point of view.

264

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I have faith in science…

[/quote]

Finally.

You finally put into words what I’ve been telling you is your belief system, your faith.[/quote]

You keep trying to draw this parallel as if it is something significant.

The faith required to believe in the complete and total infallibility of a book written thousands of years ago by men about the wacky adventures of Flying Spaghetti Monster, et al, is really NOT comparable to the faith required in a system that has given us skyscrapers, submarines, space travel, routinely-successful heart transplants and unlimited streaming pornography… no matter how much legitimacy you “pray” it might give that swiss cheese “theory” of yours that is currently festering on the taint of honest academia.

Feel free to address the irony of you plagiarizing your thoughts directly from Creationist web sites while smugly informing the rest of us that we are all intellectual lemmings.

Feel even free-er to address my questions about the article you posted (to show you actually understand the shit you like to spew by the gallon) AND to explain how you reconcile the data it contains with your infallible stance on the lifespan of the universe. Are you suggesting the article correctly proves measurement methods are faulty by… using data collected solely from measurement methods??

Or did you just assume everyone here would get glassy-eyed, slack-jawed and awestruck at an article with big, science-y words in it and assume your smug declaration of its proof is, indeed, correct?

I mean, the fucking FIRST PAGE asks the question, “Have the laws of nature remained the same since the Big Bang some 13.5 billion years ago?”

Yes, that is 13.5 BILLION. I know it looks a lot like 6 THOUSAND, but you gotta be careful when debating shit on the interwebz… the nature of this medium pretty much guarantees other people can read, as well.

265

[quote]overstand wrote:

So atheists render discussion impossible because they think they are smarter than religious folk, but you can’t clarify a simple statement you made because you ‘seriously doubt he’s thinking along the same lines as you’? Who is really at fault for the breakdown in discussion here? [/quote]

You seem confused. Why would I get into some drawn out argument when I already can predict what his response is going to be?

You are faulting me for avoiding a long pointless argument?

LOL

Get real, dude.

I don’t give you ammo…so you make the fact that I gave you none the source of ammunition…and I can’t see where this is going?

268

Am I the only one in this thread with an advanced degree in Geology/Geophysics who is a Christian?

One of my former professors is one of the foremost leaders in studying what people have come to understand as “Plate Tectonics” and planetary evolution. He studies the oldest rocks discovered on the planet, and wrote what is the most widely used textbook on Crustal Evolution – and is a devout Christian.

One of my former advisors (structural geologist/geophysicist) is a Deacon in his church.

I literally lived about 8 years of my life trenched in all things Earth Science from fossil evolution to plate tectonics, SEM/TEM microscopy, geochronology, geomechanics, planetary geology (plus professional experience) and I have YET to understand why people think SCIENCE and RELIGION are mutually exclusive.

272

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Am I the only one in this thread with an advanced degree in Geology/Geophysics who is a Christian?

One of my former professors is one of the foremost leaders in studying what people have come to understand as “Plate Tectonics”, studies the oldest rocks discovered on the planet, and wrote what is the most widely used textbook on Crustal Evolution is a devout Christian. One of my former advisors (structural geologist/geophysicist) is a Deacon in his church.

I literally lived about 8 years of my life trenched in all things Earth Science from fossil evolution to plate tectonics, SEM/TEM microscopy, geochronology, geomechanics, planetary geology (plus professional experience) and I have YET to understand why people think SCIENCE and RELIGION are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

This is exactly how I think as well.

I just don’t understand why anyone thinks science is somehow “disproving religion”.

Not every Christian thinks the Earth is only 6,000n years old nor does the concept of God involve white robes and a beard.

This planet is a freak of any natural science we are aware of. The simple fact that we have been able to exist this long on a rock like this without being taken out by a rogue meteor is astounding. The fact that water exists here at the level it is now…the fact that our entire eco-system would fail without the moon…the fact that we even consider our own mortality…to me equals miracle. The more I find out and the more I learn, the more fascinated I become.

I don’t see how science has proved God away at this point…and some of you are a little blind to reality if you think scientists can’t believe in God.

274

BTW, Pushharder has a fundamentally spot-on perspective for questioning dating methods (and questioning certain aspects of Evolution Theory while I’m at it) that gives him the potential to make quite a good scientist – at least as an editor in peer reviewed journals anyway :wink:

The people* who actually study such things are quite aware of the fallability of the dating methods (although I think the orders of magnitude are quite sound in the methods). Regarding evolution, the scientists are keenly aware that the actual mechanisms of evolution are not “done science”.

  • EDIT: I should say “many people”-- there is always a population of scientists (as well as lay people) who are so entrenched in dogma (both sides of it).
276

[quote]pushharder wrote:
As for Ano/Anto (why the need for two screennames, sport?) he is just the typical 20-something “I’ve been to university and am ready to invade the land of the creationist” smart ass. A dime a dozen.[/quote]

Because I needed the extra account to agree with myself… but I dun goofed when I made the names so similar and used the same avatar.

It’s actually because my post delays prevent me from actively participating in discussions. The new account let me contribute in real-time before they caught on and put the brakes on it.

Still looking forward to you addressing my concerns, btw.

277

[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is exactly how I think as well.

I just don’t understand why anyone thinks science is somehow “disproving religion”.

Not every Christian thinks the Earth is only 6,000n years old nor does the concept of God involve white robes and a beard.

This planet is a freak of any natural science we are aware of. The simple fact that we have been able to exist this long on a rock like this without being taken out by a rogue meteor is astounding. The fact that water exists here at the level it is now…the fact that our entire eco-system would fail without the moon…the fact that we even consider our own mortality…to me equals miracle. The more I find out and the more I learn, the more fascinated I become.

I don’t see how science has proved God away at this point…and some of you are a little blind to reality if you think scientists can’t believe in God.[/quote]

No idea how you got the bold parts stuck in your head… but I DO think it’s funny that the guy screaming “Bully!” in this thread is often the first to push other posters into lockers and steal their lunch money in any other debate.

Signed,
an agnostic

278

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
… and I have YET to understand why people think SCIENCE and RELIGION are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

This is where I am… thus my previous post stating the bookmark in my Bible is from Scientific American magazine.

Faith is faith.

279

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
… and I have YET to understand why people think SCIENCE and RELIGION are mutually exclusive.[/quote]

This is where I am… thus my previous post stating the bookmark in my Bible is from Scientific American magazine.

Faith is faith.
[/quote]

Not here.

When you have guys literally responding to a post with “the spaghetti monster” I am guessing we won’t be seeing much entrenching mind expanding discussion on this topic.

Wait…CAT PIC!!!