298 Million Yr Old Forest Found

Off Topic
761

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

Can you choose to believe in the easter bunny, right now? [/quote]

Dude, YES, you can. You do it every time you think of the subject. If 100 years from now they find a giant bunny trapped in ice carrying a basket filled with chocolate, then people would have to choose to believe something different.

As far as you know now, that bunny is just a marketing ploy dreamed up to make kids buy more Easter crap. You have made the choice to believe that bunny has no basis in reality at all based on what we know about it RIGHT NOW.

That is about as basic as I can put that.

You make a constant choice everyday to believe that your feet will hit the ground when you get out of bed. You base that choice on past experiences and what you currently know about gravity and where you went to sleep the night previous. If gravity somehow changed tomorrow or someone moved your bed, you would have to revise what you believe.

Your belief or lack of belief is a choice based on what you have perceived or understand about the world around you…perceptions influenced by peers, guardians and environment.

The simple fact that you compare what I speak of as God to “the Easter Bunny” shows you haven’t taken the time to even grasp what I believe.

Like I asked earlier, how do some of you justify turning your noses up at people more educated than you simply because that person believes in God?
[/quote]

So its an unconscious choice that we don’t have control of? And how does thinking of the subject imply you believe it? 100 years from now is irrelevant, I’m asking if you can believe in the easter bunny right now, just for the next 5 minutes.

762

I was wondering why this thread about an old forest found was going on and on…obviously it turned into a god debate.

763

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So its an unconscious choice that we don’t have control of? And how does thinking of the subject imply you believe it? 100 years from now is irrelevant, I’m asking if you can believe in the easter bunny right now, just for the next 5 minutes.[/quote]

I am not shocked that you clearly didn’t understand what I wrote. Maybe if you read it slower.

“Unconscious choice”?

Do you believe that if you take a step in front of you that your foot will touch solid ground?

If so, why do you believe this?

If you can’t understand what I am asking or what I am eluding to, why continue? If the goal is to make the belief in God tantamount to believing in a children’s character, why is it you can’t comprehend how insulting that is to educated professionals and the level of hubris/superiority you would have to display to arrive at that conclusion?

I mean, what have you done in life that makes you think you are so much smarter or more grounded?

765

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Dude, YES, you can. You do it every time you think of the subject. If 100 years from now they find a giant bunny trapped in ice carrying a basket filled with chocolate, then people would have to choose to believe something different. [/quote]

NO.

My beliefs would be forced to change as a result of new evidence. I could not choose to go back to believing the Easter Bunny didn’t exist when strong evidence supported that it did.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

As far as you know now, that bunny is just a marketing ploy dreamed up to make kids buy more Easter crap. You have made the choice to believe that bunny has no basis in reality at all based on what we know about it RIGHT NOW.[/quote]

Yes, all my beliefs are based on what we know right now What’s your point? That I could be wrong? Yes, that’s true.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You make a constant choice everyday to believe that your feet will hit the ground when you get out of bed. You base that choice on past experiences and what you currently know about gravity and where you went to sleep the night previous. If gravity somehow changed tomorrow or someone moved your bed, you would have to revise what you believe. [/quote]

No. You’re confusing how beliefs are formed with choice. I believe that my feet will hit the ground based on past experiences and reasonable expectations. I couldn’t choose to believe that my feet would hit the ceiling getting out of bed tomorrow even if I tried.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Your belief or lack of belief is a choice based on what you have perceived or understand about the world around you…perceptions influenced by peers, guardians and environment. [/quote]

read above

[quote]Professor X wrote:

The simple fact that you compare what I speak of as God to “the Easter Bunny” shows you haven’t taken the time to even grasp what I believe.

Like I asked earlier, how do some of you justify turning your noses up at people more educated than you simply because that person believes in God?
[/quote]

If you’re referring to me, I’m not sure where I’m doing that?

766

[quote]Professor X wrote:
/quote]

Anything is possible, everything is not probable. [/quote]

So you are not claiming to know with absolute certainty that god exists?

767

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I was wondering why this thread about an old forest found was going on and on…obviously it turned into a god debate.[/quote]

True.

The evidence as to “who” turned it into a “god debate” is right there in quotes. The anti-God folks are so obsessed with their “mission” that we can’t even discuss the forest, radiometric dating, evidence for and against a young/old universe, etc. without the atheist and agnostic ideologues frothing at the mouth and tauntingly screaming from their pulpits about the heresy and “delusion” of the non-believer (the one who does not believe as they do).[/quote]

When you say things like us university educated people are “taught what to think” instead of “how to think” you are baiting us into a debate.

Don’t pretend you are not also guilty of this yourself.

768

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I was wondering why this thread about an old forest found was going on and on…obviously it turned into a god debate.[/quote]

True.

The evidence as to “who” turned it into a “god debate” is right there in quotes. The anti-God folks are so obsessed with their “mission” that we can’t even discuss the forest, radiometric dating, evidence for and against a young/old universe, etc. without the atheist and agnostic ideologues frothing at the mouth and tauntingly screaming from their pulpits about the heresy and “delusion” of the non-believer (the one who does not believe as they do).[/quote]

When you say things like us university educated people are “taught what to think” instead of “how to think” you are baiting us into a debate.

Don’t pretend you are not also guilty of this yourself.

[/quote]

This entire thread went the direction it did because of him. The anti-god talk would have only lasted 1 page otherwise, and it was just joking around to begin with but it only took 1 person like him to take it personally.

769

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So its an unconscious choice that we don’t have control of? And how does thinking of the subject imply you believe it? 100 years from now is irrelevant, I’m asking if you can believe in the easter bunny right now, just for the next 5 minutes.[/quote]

I am not shocked that you clearly didn’t understand what I wrote. Maybe if you read it slower.

“Unconscious choice”?

Do you believe that if you take a step in front of you that your foot will touch solid ground?

If so, why do you believe this?

If you can’t understand what I am asking or what I am eluding to, why continue? If the goal is to make the belief in God tantamount to believing in a children’s character, why is it you can’t comprehend how insulting that is to educated professionals and the level of hubris/superiority you would have to display to arrive at that conclusion?

I mean, what have you done in life that makes you think you are so much smarter or more grounded?[/quote]

Your trying to take this in another direction than I intended. Give me 1 example of something you don’t believe in that is not a children’s character.

772

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Dear University Educated Person,

It’s “we” university educated people, not “us.”

Sincerely,

Non University Educated Person[/quote]

Is this where we do the Grammar Nazi thing?

Hey, X, I’m sure we’d have an easier time grasping your point if you made it a little easier to catch.

774

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Dear University Educated Person,

It’s “we” university educated people, not “us.”

Sincerely,

Non University Educated Person[/quote]

Is this where we do the Grammar Nazi thing?

Hey, X, I’m sure we’d have an easier time grasping your point if you made it a little easier to catch.[/quote]

Just having some fun. Lighten up, you’ll live a longer and more productive agnostic life.[/quote]

As was I…

775

And don’t act like you didn’t spot that.

776

[quote]whiny little bitch wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

This entire thread went the direction it did because of him…

[/quote]

You whiny little bitch.

LOL[/quote]

777

Just read the entire thread and damn was it entertaining and interresting, especially the matt guys post
where good and informative even though I didnt understand all of what he wrote( I suck at hard science ).

778

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just read the entire thread and damn was it entertaining and interresting, especially the matt guys post
where good and informative even though I didnt understand all of what he wrote( I suck at hard science ).
[/quote]

Thanks! A lot more people have said on here and in PMs that they enjoyed my posts than I would have thought. I expected a lot more hostility with these topics than I have seen. I know I can be long winded and technical at times, but I really do try to keep my posts as short and comprehensible as possible.

779

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Just read the entire thread and damn was it entertaining and interresting, especially the matt guys post
where good and informative even though I didnt understand all of what he wrote( I suck at hard science ).
[/quote]

Thanks! A lot more people have said on here and in PMs that they enjoyed my posts than I would have thought. I expected a lot more hostility with these topics than I have seen. I know I can be long winded and technical at times, but I really do try to keep my posts as short and comprehensible as possible.[/quote]

Well I guess you didnt experience alot of hostility because your debating style is very civil and you are obviously a smart guy who knows apparantly alot about dating tools. Also you where not using your superior knowledge about dating tools to shut anyone up or “win” any debate and that is suggesting that you are genuinly interrested in talking to people not shouting your preconsieved opinions at people. Well thats how I saw it atleast. Either way I hope you post more in the future because your posting style is appreciated, atleast by me.

780

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jasmincar wrote:
I was wondering why this thread about an old forest found was going on and on…obviously it turned into a god debate.[/quote]

True.

The evidence as to “who” turned it into a “god debate” is right there in quotes. The anti-God folks are so obsessed with their “mission” that we can’t even discuss the forest, radiometric dating, evidence for and against a young/old universe, etc. without the atheist and agnostic ideologues frothing at the mouth and tauntingly screaming from their pulpits about the heresy and “delusion” of the non-believer (the one who does not believe as they do).[/quote]

[quote]Christine wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
Cool story.

Too bad the planet is actually only 6,000 years old.[/quote]

God planted the forest there to test the true believers.

Duh![/quote]

How frightfully scathing.