Where is this aloofness you speak about?
Is it my sense of bewilderment concerning your choice of supernatural faith?
If you define this “god” concept as something that is pretty close to a quasi-literal bible exegesis, then there is no question as to a rational mode of choice.
There might be a lot of wiggle room for various “god” concepts, the vast majority being non-literal regarding holy texts of all kinds.
But now we approach a semantic game of fetch, where you play tortoise and I have to be hare. [/quote]
Dude, you are trying too hard. What exactly do you think I believe in detail?
[quote]
The bible’s trick here is that it’s practically a game without entry fee, without stakes - nobody ever veryfied anything here.[/quote]
I’m sorry, what in science equals the paint analogy? You haven’t been presented with any evidence that our existence was not guided by some force that we don’t understand either.
What you do have…is an astounding amount of order in a system of chaos and randomness that is literally so rare it is mind boggling.[/quote]
The paint analogy was to explain belief/disbelief in god is not a choice. Nothing more.
You must like being sad, Schwarzy, you keep coming back for more.
[/quote]
Yeah, why would I do that, I cannot help bit wonder myself.
Bu then you wrote about this Zercher setup, where you deadlift the weight onto your knees/quads.
Gave me an exercise that delivers a never-before-felt pump in the vastus medialis.
And then there’s the combat forum.
And Thibaudeau and Gluteguy.
And, T-gods be willilng, a new atomic dog.
[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” 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.[/quote]
This thread never intended to be a discussion about the exclusiveness of science and religion and it really hasn’t gone that route except to the extent science conflicts with a rigid literal translation of the Bible and other religious texts. So maybe we could ask what you believe?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Matt, not that I expect you to snap to like a Marine recruit in boot camp but I was hoping you’d answer this question that I posted awhile back:
Please show us how we can prove that the decay rate of potassium and uranium has remained constant throughout the course of the earth’s/universe’s history.
Maybe you just missed it or maybe you intentionally avoided it. I don’t know.
Do your best to present it in layman’s terms. Thanks.[/quote]
According to this Christian physicist, it is the telescope, among other things, that answers your question(s).
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Something’s “wrong” here, don’t you agree? After all, it’s common knowledge you can’t be a Christian and have a PhD in physics with a minor in geology AND work for Caltech’s Division of
Geological & Planetary Sciences. They must be keeping him there like some kind of zoo animal or sumthin.[/quote]
From the article:
[i]- All of the different dating methods agree–they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!
Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.
Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.
Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.[/i]
You’re getting slapped around here, push… and you still haven’t answered my questions.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Ano/Anto, the more you bark the more you expose your religiosity.[/quote]
As we converse, I have my feet up on a table, laptop in my lap, diet Dr. Pepper chilling by my side and 30 Rock on Netflix.
Trust me, I ain’t even mad.
But you’re dodging my concerns. You know it, I know it, and everyone following along knows it.
Again: how do you reconcile plagiarizing your debate sound bites from other web sites informing me and others that we are all intellectual lemmings?
Again: why did you think posting an article that states the universe is 13.5 billion years old while referencing data points originating 12.6 billion years ago would support YEC position?
Again: please see my additional questions regarding the article.[/quote]
Another potentially awesome discussion turned fucking rediculous. If only questions would be answered, and ideas exchanged without ppl dodging, speaking in riddles, and responding selectively.
No im not gonna participate in this shit show, just dissapointed in a potentially great discussion.
Then again, if this is my entertainment i get what i pay for
Where is this aloofness you speak about?
Is it my sense of bewilderment concerning your choice of supernatural faith?
If you define this “god” concept as something that is pretty close to a quasi-literal bible exegesis, then there is no question as to a rational mode of choice.
There might be a lot of wiggle room for various “god” concepts, the vast majority being non-literal regarding holy texts of all kinds.
But now we approach a semantic game of fetch, where you play tortoise and I have to be hare. [/quote]
Dude, you are trying too hard. What exactly do you think I believe in detail?
In Detail? No idea, not interested and not relevant. (I hope that’s not the aforementioned Hare & Tortoise)
If it’s a christian belief, you most definitely fall into a category of systematic non-rationality.
If it’s not, then why would you care to post here?
Regarding the biblical claims.
Not one of the important ones.
Not a single one.
And you know it.
[quote]kheaslim wrote:
Another potentially awesome discussion turned fucking rediculous. If only questions would be answered, and ideas exchanged without ppl dodging, speaking in riddles, and responding selectively.
No im not gonna participate in this shit show, just dissapointed in a potentially great discussion.
Then again, if this is my entertainment i get what i pay for[/quote]
Good show of courage by specifically naming what/who you have a problem with.
Thank you for telling us you won’t respond…by responding.
I’m off to log into that fat luver’s website so I can tell them I won’t be posting there either.
In Detail? No idea, not interested and not relevant. (I hope that’s not the aforementioned Hare & Tortoise)
If it’s a christian belief, you most definitely fall into a category of systematic non-rationality.
If it’s not, then why would you care to post here?
.[/quote]
Systemic non-rationality based on simply believing in a higher power?
Care to explain that?
I just got done writing up my scientific patient charts…so I am really wondering where my “systemic non-rationality” ends and begins.
[quote]kheaslim wrote:
Another potentially awesome discussion turned fucking rediculous. If only questions would be answered, and ideas exchanged without ppl dodging, speaking in riddles, and responding selectively.
No im not gonna participate in this shit show, just dissapointed in a potentially great discussion.
Then again, if this is my entertainment i get what i pay for[/quote]
Good show of courage by specifically naming what/who you have a problem with.
Thank you for telling us you won’t respond…by responding.
I’m off to log into that fat luver’s website so I can tell them I won’t be posting there either.
