I Still Think I'm Right

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Movies and shows like Harry Potter and Star Trek mix fact and fiction all the time. Bit no one is busting the authors for something "illegal" or inappropriate communications ... Rather shows that are entertaining and thought provoking. Seems lik our minds do much the same thing, but somehow it's against all rules if I do it.

 

If you do it for entertainment purposes (like Harry potter and Star Trek) ...no problem.

 

So are you entertaining us, End..?

.

.

.

Sure, our minds mix things up.

 

But when we want to get serious and stop thinking in showbiz terms, we divide entertainment off from science and concentrate only on the science.

 

That's why science is called a discipline.

 

It takes discipline to stop mixing everything up just as we want.

 

Discipline requires focus and commitment and effort.

.

.

.

So can you stop mixing stuff up in your mind, just as you want... and meet us on the common ground of disciplined thought, End?

 

I hear what you are saying, but religion is a discipline as well.

 

Correct.  A disciple is someone who is disciplined.

 

So I gather we will have to work as well as we can around these issues. When we talk about God, unless there is some type of proof, then we have NO other option but to conflate two opposing disciplines......and I'm not even sure mathematics always falls in an applied fashion.

 

Incorrect.

 

Firstly, the only branch of science that proves things is math.  All other branches offer explanations based upon evidence.  So physics doesn't prove things, it offers evidence-based explanations.

 

If there is no scientific evidence of or for God, then the only option science can take is to conclude that it can say nothing meaningful about His existence or non-existence.  Science is agnostic about that question.

 

Having done this, there is no need to conflate two opposing disciplines.

 

There is no need to conflate anything.

 

 Science cannot answer questions about God's existence or non-existence.

 

(And we've been here many, many times before.  The rules on this don't change.  To be disciplined in science means following it's rules.)

 

 

I regularly draw attention to the quality of your spiritual fruit, End.

 

Quite different to faith without works.

[StillLooking]

 

Feel free to make your point SL...post all the verses you would like and I shall entertain them. It's Friday evening where I am and I am about to participate in an adult beverage. Btw, disciple comes from discipline if I'm not mistaken. Pretty sure the most important thing about any region is not only the study, but the practice....the faith without works thing. Ask BAA, he will tell you. He like to point that out regularly with me

 

 

Here is from bible gateway:

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formlessand empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

Now, your Bible say your God created heavens and earth and then he created light. This creation story is contradicting cosmology. Which one do you trust? Why?

[mymistake]

End,

 

I wish that MyMistake hadn't written that I was going to 'teach' you the meaning of grace.

 

 

 

 

I apologize for my poor word choice.  It was not my intent to make things harder or awkward.  

[katsteevns]

Jesus has a god? This is correct and as such, violates the first commamdment.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

Feel free to make your point SL...post all the verses you would like and I shall entertain them. It's Friday evening where I am and I am about to participate in an adult beverage. Btw, disciple comes from discipline if I'm not mistaken. Pretty sure the most important thing about any region is not only the study, but the practice....the faith without works thing. Ask BAA, he will tell you. He like to point that out regularly with me

 

 

Here is from bible gateway:

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formlessand empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

Now, your Bible say your God created heavens and earth and then he created light. This creation story is contradicting cosmology. Which one do you trust? Why?

 

 

 

As an additional point, water contains oxygen.  Oxygen was not part of the early universe and is made within stars as part of normal stellar nucleosynthesis during the mid to end life of the star.  It is only after such stars expand or explode at their end-lives that this oxygen is pushed into space where some of the oxygen (not all) will join with hydrogen to form water molecules via normal chemical process.  Such stars produce radiation at many different frequencies from formation through end-life, including what humans observe as "light".  Many stars emit this radiation (including "light") for billions of years before any appreciable amounts of oxygen are formed within the star, or even later being ejected into space.  There was light before oxygen and there had to be oxygen before water.  In the Bible claim referenced above, water existed before light.  The actual empirical evidence says otherwise.  Accordingly, the Bible claim is wrong.

[Guest end3]

 

Feel free to make your point SL...post all the verses you would like and I shall entertain them. It's Friday evening where I am and I am about to participate in an adult beverage. Btw, disciple comes from discipline if I'm not mistaken. Pretty sure the most important thing about any region is not only the study, but the practice....the faith without works thing. Ask BAA, he will tell you. He like to point that out regularly with me

 

Here is from bible gateway:

 

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formlessand empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

 

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

 

Now, your Bible say your God created heavens and earth and then he created light. This creation story is contradicting cosmology. Which one do you trust? Why?

 

I trust both of them to some degree. I'm not sure we have a wonderful grasp on how everything came into being.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Feel free to make your point SL...post all the verses you would like and I shall entertain them. It's Friday evening where I am and I am about to participate in an adult beverage. Btw, disciple comes from discipline if I'm not mistaken. Pretty sure the most important thing about any region is not only the study, but the practice....the faith without works thing. Ask BAA, he will tell you. He like to point that out regularly with me

 

Here is from bible gateway:

 

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formlessand empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

 

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

 

Now, your Bible say your God created heavens and earth and then he created light. This creation story is contradicting cosmology. Which one do you trust? Why?

 

I trust both of them to some degree. I'm not sure we have a wonderful grasp on how everything came into being.

 

 

Well End,  the same scientist (Kaku) that you (wrongly) cited as talking about the God of the Bible would agree with you - we don't have a wonderful grasp of how everything came to be.

But he would also say that that we do have a wonderfully precise understanding of how the universe evolved, from an incredibly small fraction of a second after it came into being.

He would also tell you that this understanding rules out any possibility of reconciling the book of Genesis with what we understand about the very early universe.

 

So, the big question for you is this.

 

If you're prepared to take something Kaku says to support your beliefs are you equally willing to take something else he says that undermines with your beliefs..?

[Guest end3]

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

[bornagainathiest]

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

No.  No.  Don't answer a question with a question - that's not being disciplined.

And I didn't bother to read the guys article.

 

But you should have.  That's what disciplined people do.

 

The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

But not the people who understand cosmology, which is what this thread's about.

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

 

Then put in the effort, End.

 

Focus.  Commit yourself to finishing something that you start.  Don't get sidetracked.  Persist.  Commit yourself to keeping track of what happens in a debate.  Persevere.

 

Reading the whole article, is putting in the effort.  Just dipping into it isn't.

 

Stating that the point was that there are people who mix math and God is (still) an assertion on your part.  

 

Disciplined people don't just re-assert their points, they provide evidence for them.

 

Please put in the effort and do so.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

We are much more forgiving of ourselves than others because we know ourselves. If we took the time to know others as well as we know ourselves, then we might find a little more grace for each other. Jesus says he would like our relationships to be analogous to his and God's.....which is eternal life.

 

Double dog dare you atheist types to refute this.

It has been my experience that most people, myself included, are much harder on themselves than they are on others and offer forgiveness much more freely to anyone who asks than to themselves, despite needing their own forgiveness more than anything religion could offer.  As a corollary, most people, myself included again, have absolutely no idea of who they are, meaning, essentially, that "we" don't "know" ourselves (let alone others, who also don't "know" themselves and can only put on a brave mask for others).

 

Perhaps this is all because we are so subjective.

[Guest end3]

 

We are much more forgiving of ourselves than others because we know ourselves. If we took the time to know others as well as we know ourselves, then we might find a little more grace for each other. Jesus says he would like our relationships to be analogous to his and God's.....which is eternal life.

 

Double dog dare you atheist types to refute this.

It has been my experience that most people, myself included, are much harder on themselves than they are on others and offer forgiveness much more freely to anyone who asks than to themselves, despite needing their own forgiveness more than anything religion could offer.  As a corollary, most people, myself included again, have absolutely no idea of who they are, meaning, essentially, that "we" don't "know" ourselves (let alone others, who also don't "know" themselves and can only put on a brave mask for others).

 

Perhaps this is all because we are so subjective.

 

Two aspects that may be helpful, maybe not....I don't have a lock on the answer. One, that accepting the good and bad about myself, realistically admitting, "yep, I do that" is one aspect of knowing. But more than that, secondly, I think the main thing that has helped me "know" myself is really asking myself what brings me joy. Not passing joyous moments so much, but joy every time I see it think about it....analogous to Robin Williams in Peter Pan when he was trying to re-learn how to fly....his happy place.

 

I've tried to answer those questions and then PURSUE them....and it has helped me. I think we can wonder around being a "this" or a "that"....a "chemist" or "mechanic", but not sure that fulfills if it's not a passion. Granted, a person can become a great "this" and never be satisfied. But once you are fulfilled, then your cup runneths over so to speak.....to others, which brings even more satisfaction and joy.

 

I'm late to the party in pursuing these things, but have seen videos of people that have started their dreams late....so that is encouraging. Wish someone had made this more evident or I would have had my ears open earlier.

[StillLooking]

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

Feel free to make your point SL...post all the verses you would like and I shall entertain them. It's Friday evening where I am and I am about to participate in an adult beverage. Btw, disciple comes from discipline if I'm not mistaken. Pretty sure the most important thing about any region is not only the study, but the practice....the faith without works thing. Ask BAA, he will tell you. He like to point that out regularly with me

 

 

Here is from bible gateway:

 

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formlessand empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

 

Now, your Bible say your God created heavens and earth and then he created light. This creation story is contradicting cosmology. Which one do you trust? Why?

 

 

 

As an additional point, water contains oxygen.  Oxygen was not part of the early universe and is made within stars as part of normal stellar nucleosynthesis during the mid to end life of the star.  It is only after such stars expand or explode at their end-lives that this oxygen is pushed into space where some of the oxygen (not all) will join with hydrogen to form water molecules via normal chemical process.  Such stars produce radiation at many different frequencies from formation through end-life, including what humans observe as "light".  Many stars emit this radiation (including "light") for billions of years before any appreciable amounts of oxygen are formed within the star, or even later being ejected into space.  There was light before oxygen and there had to be oxygen before water.  In the Bible claim referenced above, water existed before light.  The actual empirical evidence says otherwise.  Accordingly, the Bible claim is wrong.

 

 

Here is his post. Reply to this.

[Guest end3]

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

We are much more forgiving of ourselves than others because we know ourselves. If we took the time to know others as well as we know ourselves, then we might find a little more grace for each other. Jesus says he would like our relationships to be analogous to his and God's.....which is eternal life.

 

Double dog dare you atheist types to refute this.

It has been my experience that most people, myself included, are much harder on themselves than they are on others and offer forgiveness much more freely to anyone who asks than to themselves, despite needing their own forgiveness more than anything religion could offer.  As a corollary, most people, myself included again, have absolutely no idea of who they are, meaning, essentially, that "we" don't "know" ourselves (let alone others, who also don't "know" themselves and can only put on a brave mask for others).

 

Perhaps this is all because we are so subjective.

 

Two aspects that may be helpful, maybe not....I don't have a lock on the answer. One, that accepting the good and bad about myself, realistically admitting, "yep, I do that" is one aspect of knowing. But more than that, secondly, I think the main thing that has helped me "know" myself is really asking myself what brings me joy. Not passing joyous moments so much, but joy every time I see it think about it....analogous to Robin Williams in Peter Pan when he was trying to re-learn how to fly....his happy place.

 

I've tried to answer those questions and then PURSUE them....and it has helped me. I think we can wonder around being a "this" or a "that"....a "chemist" or "mechanic", but not sure that fulfills if it's not a passion. Granted, a person can become a great "this" and never be satisfied. But once you are fulfilled, then your cup runneths over so to speak.....to others, which brings even more satisfaction and joy.

 

I'm late to the party in pursuing these things, but have seen videos of people that have started their dreams late....so that is encouraging. Wish someone had made this more evident or I would have had my ears open earlier.

 

Good for you!

 

However, what you said in your original post was that people in general are more forgiving of themselves than others and know themselves better than others.  I offered my own (differing) opinion as a counterpoint.

 

However happy I may be about your recent successes at self-discovery, they do not speak toward the self-knowledge or self-forgiveness of the people in general you mentioned.

 

Therefore, you may "still think you're right" but, so far, you've only demonstrated that "you" are more self-forgiving and -knowledgeable.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

These comments indicate a lack of discipline and commitment on your part in understanding how science works, End.

 

You don't seem to have put in the required effort to understand what science's remit is, what it can do and what it can't do. 

 

If you had you wouldn't go with what seems significant to you.

 

You'd go with what science says is significant, after you've disciplined yourself to do all of the required work correctly.

 

That's what dedicated, committed and disciplined people do.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

These comments indicate a lack of discipline and commitment on your part in understanding how science works, End.

 

You don't seem to have put in the required effort to understand what science's remit is, what it can do and what it can't do. 

 

If you had you wouldn't go with what seems significant to you.

 

You'd go with what science says is significant, after you've disciplined yourself to do all of the required work correctly.

 

That's what dedicated, committed and disciplined people do.

 

No, BAA, I got it. I'm guessing 400 million years is significant. Actually, it doesn't weigh on me enough to go participate. I have other priorities at this point.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

We are much more forgiving of ourselves than others because we know ourselves. If we took the time to know others as well as we know ourselves, then we might find a little more grace for each other. Jesus says he would like our relationships to be analogous to his and God's.....which is eternal life.

 

Double dog dare you atheist types to refute this.

It has been my experience that most people, myself included, are much harder on themselves than they are on others and offer forgiveness much more freely to anyone who asks than to themselves, despite needing their own forgiveness more than anything religion could offer.  As a corollary, most people, myself included again, have absolutely no idea of who they are, meaning, essentially, that "we" don't "know" ourselves (let alone others, who also don't "know" themselves and can only put on a brave mask for others).

 

Perhaps this is all because we are so subjective.

 

Two aspects that may be helpful, maybe not....I don't have a lock on the answer. One, that accepting the good and bad about myself, realistically admitting, "yep, I do that" is one aspect of knowing. But more than that, secondly, I think the main thing that has helped me "know" myself is really asking myself what brings me joy. Not passing joyous moments so much, but joy every time I see it think about it....analogous to Robin Williams in Peter Pan when he was trying to re-learn how to fly....his happy place.

 

I've tried to answer those questions and then PURSUE them....and it has helped me. I think we can wonder around being a "this" or a "that"....a "chemist" or "mechanic", but not sure that fulfills if it's not a passion. Granted, a person can become a great "this" and never be satisfied. But once you are fulfilled, then your cup runneths over so to speak.....to others, which brings even more satisfaction and joy.

 

I'm late to the party in pursuing these things, but have seen videos of people that have started their dreams late....so that is encouraging. Wish someone had made this more evident or I would have had my ears open earlier.

 

Good for you!

 

However, what you said in your original post was that people in general are more forgiving of themselves than others and know themselves better than others.  I offered my own (differing) opinion as a counterpoint.

 

However happy I may be about your recent successes at self-discovery, they do not speak toward the self-knowledge or self-forgiveness of the people in general you mentioned.

 

Therefore, you may "still think you're right" but, so far, you've only demonstrated that "you" are more self-forgiving and -knowledgeable.

 

That's a good point Prof. Perhaps I should have said that we rationalize our own behaviors without actually knowing ourselves. Maybe the knowing is relative to our environment.....more forgiving of ourselves via errant rationalization.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

These comments indicate a lack of discipline and commitment on your part in understanding how science works, End.

 

You don't seem to have put in the required effort to understand what science's remit is, what it can do and what it can't do. 

 

If you had you wouldn't go with what seems significant to you.

 

You'd go with what science says is significant, after you've disciplined yourself to do all of the required work correctly.

 

That's what dedicated, committed and disciplined people do.

 

No, BAA, I got it. I'm guessing 400 million years is significant. Actually, it doesn't weigh on me enough to go participate. I have other priorities at this point.

 

 

Disciplined people don't guess.

[StillLooking]

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

The research on cancer is still ongoing. Of course there will be results that will contradict common knowledge. That is science. It evolves. I will still eat red meat, I will still eat hot dog and I will still eat bacon. If you have paid attention to nutrition, your diet would consist of variety of food. I see red meat similar to wine, it is good in moderation but you don't eat and drink them too much. 

 

Science is not looking for 100% correct answer. Science is about observation and trying to answer the why question. Yes, science evolves. The age of the earth is not definitive right now because the technology to calculate it is becoming better. However, science is not going to come up with the age of earth less than 100,000 years because that figure contradicts thousands of findings across all science disciplines.

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

The research on cancer is still ongoing. Of course there will be results that will contradict common knowledge. That is science. It evolves. I will still eat red meat, I will still eat hot dog and I will still eat bacon. If you have paid attention to nutrition, your diet would consist of variety of food. I see red meat similar to wine, it is good in moderation but you don't eat and drink them too much. 

 

Science is not looking for 100% correct answer. Science is about observation and trying to answer the why question. Yes, science evolves. The age of the earth is not definitive right now because the technology to calculate it is becoming better. However, science is not going to come up with the age of earth less than 100,000 years because that figure contradicts thousands of findings across all science disciplines.

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

 

 

StillLooking,

 

I've highlighted a key word in your reply to End3.

 

Rather than being unwilling to debate science, I contend that he lacks the required (insert key word here) to learn how science works.

 

Which leads him to take science out of context thru lack of understanding.

 

If he could be bothered to understand it he wouldn't take it out of context.

[Guest end3]

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

That's not my point. Any time I have used science to demonstrate the potential language of the Bible, I get met with consternation. A lot of neat similarities to science and the Bible, but NOOOOO, science is facts, science is PROOF! Or alternatively, you END3 do not know science, you can't possibly, blah blah blah.

 

I could give you several examples at will SL, but wagering you 1000 bucks that they will immediately be met with, that's not valid comparison, that's not science, you can't do that, blah blah. Let me know.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

The research on cancer is still ongoing. Of course there will be results that will contradict common knowledge. That is science. It evolves. I will still eat red meat, I will still eat hot dog and I will still eat bacon. If you have paid attention to nutrition, your diet would consist of variety of food. I see red meat similar to wine, it is good in moderation but you don't eat and drink them too much. 

 

Science is not looking for 100% correct answer. Science is about observation and trying to answer the why question. Yes, science evolves. The age of the earth is not definitive right now because the technology to calculate it is becoming better. However, science is not going to come up with the age of earth less than 100,000 years because that figure contradicts thousands of findings across all science disciplines.

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

 

 

StillLooking,

 

I've highlighted a key word in your reply to End3.

 

Rather than being unwilling to debate science, I contend that he lacks the required (insert key word here) to learn how science works.

 

Which leads him to take science out of context thru lack of understanding.

 

If he could be bothered to understand it he wouldn't take it out of context.

 

Horse shit BAA. This is hilarious.....I read hers, wrote a response and then looked at your post here. Remember your posts are hidden to me as I have you on ignore. I chose to read this one only to find proof of what I just wagered to her.

 

Someone pay me my money....

 

It's a gift people, I'll be here all week.

[Guest end3]

Moses vs. Inductively Coupled Plasma

Jesus as "The Internal Standard"

The stick and reverse osmosis.

The properties of water.

 

And on and on and on....

 

Crap, I forgot, I don't do science. Sorry BAA, my mistake, I'm lacking context somehow.

[bornagainathiest]

Moses vs. Inductively Coupled Plasma

Jesus as "The Internal Standard"

The stick and reverse osmosis.

The properties of water.

 

And on and on and on....

 

Crap, I forgot, I don't do science. Sorry BAA, my mistake, I'm lacking context somehow.

 

Well at least you're aware that you lack context.

 

But do you have the focus and commitment to do something about it?