Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 11:24 AM
141 online now:
Diomedes, dwise1, PurpleYouko, Tangle (4 members, 137 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,482 Year: 3,519/19,786 Month: 514/1,087 Week: 104/212 Day: 20/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Author Topic:   On The Limits of Human Talent
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 923 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 46 of 126 (711838)
11-22-2013 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by marc9000
11-22-2013 9:30 AM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
I put all the pertinent quotes for this thread together for reference at the bottom.

I don't consider the time frame to be identifiable. I guess I disagree with AIG slightly on that one. I think (in some cases) we have to stop short of trying to identify times for religious purposes, or try to claim that early humans and dinosours lived at exactly the same time, as I think AIG does. I think it's a mistake to go out on that limb.

This is a promising remark. You do realize that according to AiG and ICR you are doing exactly what you are complaining that the scientific community does?

It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test.

You are putting God's word to the test in the view of Aig and ICR. But in your mind you have altered your understanding of the biblical narrative such that there is no longer a conflict.
So who's standard do we use here to stop the scientific inquiry to reduce supernatural acts to natural explanations, yours or AiGs/ICRs?

REFERENCES

message 74

quote:
I know people that believe the fossils of dinosaurs were specially fabricated by God to test our faith. I couldn't remain on board that boat.

This is a result of "putting God to the test", or "leaning on our own understanding".


quote:
What caught my attention was not so much the lack of evidence for some of the recorded biblical events as much as the existence of contradictory evidence for those events. Did God create false evidence to test our faith?

Could be, but I think it's clearer that man bends over backwards to dig up false evidence.


quote:
I don't consider the time frame to be identifiable. I guess I disagree with AIG slightly on that one. I think (in some cases) we have to stop short of trying to identify times for religious purposes, or try to claim that early humans and dinosours lived at exactly the same time, as I think AIG does. I think it's a mistake to go out on that limb.

message 79

quote:
If you don't mind, (stunning victory BTW, congratulations are in order), would you mind starting a thread in the faith and belief forum to elaborate on the merits of refusing to use our minds to think (leaning upon our own understanding) or why you believe it is something worthy of reward in the hereafter. From my recollection this doesn't sit well with the parable about the talents.

from the OP

quote:
I referred to the Biblical instruction of "leaning not on our own understanding", mainly in the way science tries to reduce supernatural acts into something that must comply with current scientific knowledge.

quote:
By "lean not on our own understanding", I don't think that means to stop short of attempts to learn all we can about the natural world. It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by marc9000, posted 11-22-2013 9:30 AM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:41 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 47 of 126 (711885)
11-23-2013 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by shalamabobbi
11-22-2013 1:13 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
Ah see? Shotgun rather than rifle and the posts grow exponentially out of control.

Not counting GDR and AZPaul, I have 12 opponents in this thread. And you accuse my posts of growing out of your control to answer?

There's no time to gather up each pellet and asses its merit.

I'm sorry youíre hurting for time, but after all, there are 11 more to help you. What advise would you have for me to answer 12 opponents?

The one who pulled the trigger thinks each pellet hit the target doing some damage that never really took place and so he pats himself on the back thinking he's ahead in the debate.

Yes, you sized up my 12 opponents very well!

In reality there are no pellets in the shell, it is only stuffed with paper bits that never travel far from the end of the muzzle and settle harmlessly onto the floor. He never has to think too long or deeply enough about any one idea to see how his logic fails and come to understand something new that he didn't know before.

Exactly, in the case of any one of my opponents. They don't think too long or deeply, they just disappear from the thread if they have few pellets, their absence is generally not noticed, especially if they have one or more replacements, which has happened in the case of my opponents many times in the past.

He never has to modify his world view so he can leave the hammer and chisel in the drawer and enjoy another work free day of idleness.

"Modify my worldview"?? Do I have any examples of others doing that on these forums?

All the while the rising anger within his heart gets projected onto his imagined adversaries which are not really so but perhaps the only true friends he has though he doesn't see it.

Rising anger? This can actually be quite fun.

Dr Adequate has already done a point by point reply that I find to be, well,... adequate. But if I have time later I'll see if I can add anything from another perspective. You are interested in other perspectives aren't you?

Sure, 12 isn't nearly enough. I can sometimes even ease-up a little from my right-wing leanings, and say something completely down the middle, completely uncontroversial, and since everyone's so bent out of shape at me, they'll still kick and scream about something completely uncontroversial that I've said. As I said, kinda fun.

What is your purpose on forums such as these?

To challenge what scientists/atheists/liberals say from a more conservative point of view rather than from a more faithful, Biblical point of view, as do many other creationist posters, or websites like AiG or ICR. Also to do my microscopic part to provide some balance to a place that may have young, gullible, science students who come here and think theyíve found some kind of educated, mainstream political opinion. They havenít found it, they've found a radical, extreme political view that is held by only about 20 to 30% of the mainstream U.S. population.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-22-2013 1:13 PM shalamabobbi has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2013 2:18 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 64 by ringo, posted 11-24-2013 1:19 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 48 of 126 (711886)
11-23-2013 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Son Goku
11-22-2013 4:05 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
It doesn't depend on which astronomer you ask, any astronomer will tell you that the current estimate is 100-400 billion. It has an error range like any value in science.

"Error range"? I've never heard that expression before, do different scientific disciplines have different error ranges? Who determines what that range is?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Son Goku, posted 11-22-2013 4:05 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by ProtoTypical, posted 11-24-2013 8:33 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 108 by Son Goku, posted 11-27-2013 3:10 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 49 of 126 (711887)
11-23-2013 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Dr Adequate
11-22-2013 5:31 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
marc9000 writes:

Correct. I'm okay with science that has practical applications that we can use here and now, not when the same science, coupled with an extra guess and a promise, is used to try to prove the Bible wrong.

Marc, listen carefully. The people who developed techniques of organ transplantation didn't do it to annoy Jehovah's Witnesses. The makers of electrical appliances aren't in it to vex the Amish. Arms manufacturers don't sell weapons of war with the intention of pissing off the Quakers. Pig farmers aren't in it to irk the Jews, nor brewers to taunt the Muslims. Cartographers don't make globes to distress flat-Earthers. And geologists don't find the age of rocks in order to make YECs throw tantrums. They do it because they want to know how old the rocks are.

Organ transplantation, electrical appliances, arms manufacturing, pig farming, etc. then.....ages of rocks. A whole list of useful human activity, then...ages of rocks. If the scientific community has established as fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why do they continue to be fascinated with...ages of rocks? Is it for useful, practical purposes, or is it to fine-tune todays atheist science education? $27 million (if I remember right) in 1969 dollars to go to the moon, I think all we have left to show for it is a few...rocks. Every last shred of documentation of exactly how it was done was LOST, in a series of NASA blunders. I guess since they got their rocks, they were no longer worried about the tax money they wasted. So much for the giant leap for mankind. But Iím curious as to what it is about rocks that inspires atheists to waste so much time and money.

Now it is true that upsetting YECs is one of the incidental consequences of their research, just as the death of a bug might be the result of a guy driving from Los Angeles to San Francisco, if his tires happen to pass over the bug. But he didn't take the road trip in order to run over the bug. He didn't notice the existence of the bug. He didn't notice that he drove over the bug. And if you told him, he wouldn't care. What he cares about is getting to San Francisco.

Like most paranoid people, you combine your paranoia with grandiosity amounting to megalomania --- you unite the delusion that They are out to get you with the delusion that you're important enough to merit so much of Their attention. But scientists don't give a shit about your stupid cult.

If I lived a standard, politically correct, go with the flow lifestyle that most of you liberals do, I probably wouldn't be as afraid as I am of activist atheist scientists. But I'm one of millions of self employed, and along with medium sized business owners, and large corporation owners, and as a group, we merit plenty of attention from activist atheist scientists.

You see Dr, one-person operations like mine as well as the largest corporations have to be able to do one thing, and that is to PLAN. Doesn't matter if we want to grow in business, or stay the same. We won't have anything to do if we can't foresee what will happen tomorrow, or a year, or five years from now. Free market activity doesn't change overnight, it changes slowly, usually pretty predictably, or not at all in some cases. Planning is possible, and necessary in those conditions. But it's all thrown completely into chaos when the government meddles, at the whims of activist atheist scientists combined with political corruption. That's when businesses go under, lifestyles are destroyed, sometimes by nothing more than liberal atheist scientists who gained a political foothold with their education.

Unfortunately, liberal atheists are often as stupid as the bugs you refer to above, because free markets tend to react to their stupid mandates in ways that they didnít anticipate. A few decades ago, largely through global warming hysteria, auto fuel mileage standards were put into place, to see to it that Americans all drove little rollerskate econoboxes that the liberals in government had in mind for them. What happened of course, was a huge majority of people flocked to pickups and SUV's, so now overall fuel milage in the U.S. is probably lousier than it would have been if government would have just left it alone. That's only one example of government meddling with unexpected (to government) consequences. Obamacare is, of course, another.

Most of them are, if at all, only vaguely aware that it exists, and they couldn't care less that their findings contradict it. It's the bug under their tires. Maybe the bug doesn't understand this --- bugs, after all, don't understand much. Maybe the last thing the bug thinks is "He's driven hundreds of miles just to run me over? He must feel so threatened by my existence." But the real tragedy of the bug is that the driver was completely unaware of and utterly indifferent to its existence.

As most atheist liberal scientists are unaware and indifferent to the damage they do to society as they continue to try to puff themselves up and make themselves feel important with their mandates.

You guys really only have two ways to get the attention of scientists. One is sending them hate-mail. This they largely ignore. The other is trying to get your religious doctrines taught in science class with public money. At that point a few of them will spend a little time dealing with this minor nuisance, for the sake of the children, the teachers, and the First Amendment. At that point you're not so much a bug under their tires as one that's spattered on their windscreen. They turn the wipers on. They turn the wipers off. And then they forget all about it and continue on to their destination.

And they have plenty of people like you to support them with cutesy little rants like this, and think you are a tremendous help to them. Dr. Adequate, please listen carefully. Very few people read, or participate on atheist forums such as these. These forums mean nothing in determining the increase or decrease in radical liberal atheist scientific agendas. Some other things for you to pay close attention to; free market corporations are not intentionally warming the planet so they can sell more air conditioners. They, nor the scientific community, have the power to control the temperature of the planet. The planet has been slightly warming and cooling on its own for thousands of years, the scientific community can't change anything about it by taking over corporate decisions or stripping individuals of their liberties, or looking at more rocks.

It's true that global warming hysteria would have been the dream of every brutal dictator that's ever existed in the past, as an easy way to gain control over the masses, that still doesn't change the fact that it's nothing but a big government farce. Now it is true that upsetting liberal atheists is one of the incidental consequences of the fact that the unwashed masses haven't signed their freedoms over to the scientific community yet, and it's unsure if they will ever become that brainwashed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-22-2013 5:31 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 11-23-2013 9:47 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2013 1:43 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-24-2013 1:50 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 11-24-2013 7:05 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 62 by Percy, posted 11-24-2013 9:05 AM marc9000 has responded
 Message 72 by Pressie, posted 11-25-2013 12:43 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 50 of 126 (711888)
11-23-2013 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by shalamabobbi
11-22-2013 6:19 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
This is a promising remark.

It's also from another thread. You responded to it in that thread, and I answered you in that thread. Your shotgun really gets out of control when you can't keep quotes within one thread.

You do realize that according to AiG and ICR you are doing exactly what you are complaining that the scientific community does?

I don't care about AiG and ICR in this thread. They don't lead me around by the nose like Dawkins and a few others lead atheists around.

So who's standard do we use here to stop the scientific inquiry to reduce supernatural acts to natural explanations, yours or AiGs/ICRs?

One of your 11 helpers brought up AiG and ICR. Though you've decided to jump on that rabbit trail and run with it, the fact remains that they have nothing to do with this thread. The O/P was in my words, so it would be my opinions/"standards" to question scientific attempts to convince the masses that they are gods, that they are capable of knowing all of reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-22-2013 6:19 PM shalamabobbi has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by shalamabobbi, posted 11-24-2013 1:47 AM marc9000 has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 51 of 126 (711889)
11-23-2013 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-23-2013 9:30 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
I'll chip in a little here also:

Organ transplantation, electrical appliances, arms manufacturing, pig farming, etc. then.....ages of rocks. A whole list of useful human activity, then...ages of rocks. If the scientific community has established as fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why do they continue to be fascinated with...ages of rocks?

Why not? Just because we know San Francisco and New York is no reason not to explore the area in between, is it?

And, geologists and a whole bunch of other -ologists are just interested in those subjects. Really, they aren't doing it to tweak religious believers, that's just how those believers perceive it.

Is it for useful, practical purposes, or is it to fine-tune todays atheist science education?

It is for useful, practical purposes. (And your paranoia is showing again.)

$27 million (if I remember right) in 1969 dollars to go to the moon, I think all we have left to show for it is a few...rocks. Every last shred of documentation of exactly how it was done was LOST, in a series of NASA blunders. I guess since they got their rocks, they were no longer worried about the tax money they wasted. So much for the giant leap for mankind. But Iím curious as to what it is about rocks that inspires atheists to waste so much time and money.

It was not $27 million to go to the moon, in 1969 dollars or in any other year's dollars. You could look it up; I'm not going to do it for you. (It'll be good practice, as you apparently aren't used to looking up facts on the interwebs.)

And no, they got far more than just rocks. The list of advances that came out of the early space program is quite lengthy. There are hundreds of things in common usage today that had their origins in the 1960s space program, although most folks are unaware of that fact. Remote sensing and instrumentation as used in modern medicine is just one. You can look the rest up yourself. You obviously need the practice.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 10:01 PM Coyote has responded

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 52 of 126 (711892)
11-23-2013 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Coyote
11-23-2013 9:47 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
Welcome #13, the others may need you.

Why not? Just because we know San Francisco and New York is no reason not to explore the area in between, is it?

And, geologists and a whole bunch of other -ologists are just interested in those subjects. Really, they aren't doing it to tweak religious believers, that's just how those believers perceive it.

A "why not" for rocks, and ballistic rages for Intelligent Design. Must be different error ranges.

It is for useful, practical purposes. (And your paranoia is showing again.)

Examples? With some cost/benefit analysis?

It was not $27 million to go to the moon, in 1969 dollars or in any other year's dollars. You could look it up; I'm not going to do it for you. (It'll be good practice, as you apparently aren't used to looking up facts on the interwebs.)

I looked it up years ago, it was a 27 billion, not million. My mistake. I guess you think that nullifies my point?

And no, they got far more than just rocks. The list of advances that came out of the early space program is quite lengthy. There are hundreds of things in common usage today that had their origins in the 1960s space program, although most folks are unaware of that fact.

All knowledge of rocket boosters, and other information about the mechanics of the trip, LOST. I don't have to look that up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 11-23-2013 9:47 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by NosyNed, posted 11-23-2013 10:10 PM marc9000 has responded
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 11-23-2013 10:41 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 11-23-2013 10:50 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 63 by JonF, posted 11-24-2013 9:53 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 53 of 126 (711893)
11-23-2013 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by marc9000
11-23-2013 10:01 PM


Lost in Space
All knowledge of rocket boosters, and other information about the mechanics of the trip, LOST. I don't have to look that up.

This is new news to me. I couldn't find any information on it. Can you give me a link or three please?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 10:01 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by marc9000, posted 11-26-2013 7:36 PM NosyNed has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 181 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 54 of 126 (711894)
11-23-2013 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by marc9000
11-23-2013 10:01 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
You seem to have some bitter grudge against science in general and the geological sciences in particular. Could it be that those fields disprove some of your beliefs?

Examples? With some cost/benefit analysis?

Not everything science does has a directly perceived benefit, but as has been the case for hundreds of years scientific knowledge accumulates gradually. An important part of this process is that old beliefs and falsehoods are examined and discarded.

I suspect this is really what concerns you about geology and studying rocks--your beliefs about the age of the earth have been disproved and discarded. This happened about 200 years ago, incidentally.

I looked it up years ago, it was a 27 billion, not million. My mistake. I guess you think that nullifies my point?

A mistake of that magnitude does nullify your point. There is no place in science for mistakes--they must be rooted out and discarded. Scientists who are careless in their research or writing don't impress anyone, and are soon bypassed.

According to Wiki, the final cost of project Apollo was reported to Congress as $25.4 billion in 1973. Unfortunately, you post was not off by about $2 billion, but by about $25 billion.

All knowledge of rocket boosters, and other information about the mechanics of the trip, LOST. I don't have to look that up.

Perhaps you should have.

There has been a persistent rumor that the plans for the Saturn V were destroyed, so this may be what you are referring to by "lost."

This link suggests otherwise.

What appears to have happened is NASA and their contractors moved on to better designs. The blueprints for the original Saturn hardware are in an archive, where they belong. They are now only of historical interest.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 10:01 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 55 of 126 (711895)
11-23-2013 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by marc9000
11-23-2013 10:01 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
All knowledge of rocket boosters, and other information about the mechanics of the trip, LOST.

Not true. Look it up.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 10:01 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 56 of 126 (711901)
11-24-2013 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-23-2013 9:30 PM


d.p.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 923 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


(1)
Message 57 of 126 (711902)
11-24-2013 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by marc9000
11-23-2013 9:41 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
marc9000,
The other thread was the reason this thread began, remember? The shotgun remark is not about the number of participants in the thread it is about the number of topics being discussed. You are not just addressing various topics from science you are throwing in politics and business as well? Why not a remark or two about kitchen plumbing?

I won't hammer on you for where you're at educationally. I think I read in another post somewhere you have a high school education? Physics students sometimes question the validity of say the theory of relativity when it is first taught to them. After they get a chance to work through it and understand it for themselves they come to grips with it. That's how learning works. You have to tackle it for yourself. So I am not surprised to see you broadly question science from where you sit. Add in your religious world view and it is tougher still. There is a distinction between those who will hold to their biblical interpretations despite the evidence and those who will modify their views if they come to understand the evidence for themselves. Some of your remarks seemed to leave open the possibility that you might be agreeable to changing your viewpoint if you examined the evidence for yourself rather than trusting what others are telling you. If that is not the case then let's agree to end the discussion because there really isn't any point is there? If however you would consider examining the evidence for yourself then this is the challenge. Instead of finding faults with what you are being taught start trying to fit the facts together into a self-consistent world view of your own. If you will honestly attempt to do this you will discover that no one is trying to pull one over on you. If you do not care to learn the material yourself what possible effect do you suppose you can have influencing others debating subject matter that you have not mastered? You will continue to throw quotes around from those you trust who you hope know what they are talking about.

"Modify my worldview"?? Do I have any examples of others doing that on these forums?

Myself for one.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:41 PM marc9000 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by marc9000, posted 11-24-2013 9:00 PM shalamabobbi has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(2)
Message 58 of 126 (711903)
11-24-2013 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-23-2013 9:30 PM


Organ transplantation, electrical appliances, arms manufacturing, pig farming, etc. then.....ages of rocks. A whole list of useful human activity, then...ages of rocks. If the scientific community has established as fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, why do they continue to be fascinated with...ages of rocks?

Because the age of the Earth is not the only thing geologists are interested in. If you look up the word "geology" in any dictionary you will not find it defined as "the science of knowing how old the Earth is, and nothing else". As you are probably aware of this, I have to wonder why you asked such a stupid question.

Is it for useful, practical purposes ...

Obviously.

or is it to fine-tune todays atheist science education?

Have you hit your head on something?

$27 million (if I remember right) in 1969 dollars to go to the moon, I think all we have left to show for it is a few...rocks. Every last shred of documentation of exactly how it was done was LOST, in a series of NASA blunders. I guess since they got their rocks, they were no longer worried about the tax money they wasted. So much for the giant leap for mankind. But Iím curious as to what it is about rocks that inspires atheists to waste so much time and money.

Where do you get this crap from?

By the way, modesty dictates that I should admit the Moon missions were not exclusively an atheist achievement. Theists were allowed to help too. Some of them are quite bright, you know.

If I lived a standard, politically correct, go with the flow lifestyle that most of you liberals do, I probably wouldn't be as afraid as I am of activist atheist scientists. But I'm one of millions of self employed, and along with medium sized business owners, and large corporation owners, and as a group, we merit plenty of attention from activist atheist scientists.

You see Dr, one-person operations like mine as well as the largest corporations have to be able to do one thing, and that is to PLAN. Doesn't matter if we want to grow in business, or stay the same. We won't have anything to do if we can't foresee what will happen tomorrow, or a year, or five years from now. Free market activity doesn't change overnight, it changes slowly, usually pretty predictably, or not at all in some cases. Planning is possible, and necessary in those conditions. But it's all thrown completely into chaos when the government meddles, at the whims of activist atheist scientists combined with political corruption. That's when businesses go under, lifestyles are destroyed, sometimes by nothing more than liberal atheist scientists who gained a political foothold with their education.

Unfortunately, liberal atheists are often as stupid as the bugs you refer to above, because free markets tend to react to their stupid mandates in ways that they didnít anticipate. A few decades ago, largely through global warming hysteria, auto fuel mileage standards were put into place, to see to it that Americans all drove little rollerskate econoboxes that the liberals in government had in mind for them. What happened of course, was a huge majority of people flocked to pickups and SUV's, so now overall fuel milage in the U.S. is probably lousier than it would have been if government would have just left it alone. That's only one example of government meddling with unexpected (to government) consequences. Obamacare is, of course, another.

This drivel has no relevance to the point to which you are ostensibly replying.

As most atheist liberal scientists are unaware and indifferent to the damage they do to society as they continue to try to puff themselves up and make themselves feel important with their mandates.

This drivel has no relevance to the point to which you are ostensibly replying.

And they have plenty of people like you to support them with cutesy little rants like this, and think you are a tremendous help to them. Dr. Adequate, please listen carefully. Very few people read, or participate on atheist forums such as these. These forums mean nothing in determining the increase or decrease in radical liberal atheist scientific agendas. Some other things for you to pay close attention to; free market corporations are not intentionally warming the planet so they can sell more air conditioners. They, nor the scientific community, have the power to control the temperature of the planet. The planet has been slightly warming and cooling on its own for thousands of years, the scientific community can't change anything about it by taking over corporate decisions or stripping individuals of their liberties, or looking at more rocks.

It's true that global warming hysteria would have been the dream of every brutal dictator that's ever existed in the past, as an easy way to gain control over the masses, that still doesn't change the fact that it's nothing but a big government farce. Now it is true that upsetting liberal atheists is one of the incidental consequences of the fact that the unwashed masses haven't signed their freedoms over to the scientific community yet, and it's unsure if they will ever become that brainwashed.

This drivel has no relevance to the point to which you are ostensibly replying. Except, I suppose, insofar as it confirms that you're a paranoid lunatic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 59 of 126 (711904)
11-24-2013 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by marc9000
11-23-2013 8:56 PM


Advise [sic]
What advise would you have for me to answer 12 opponents?

Either make fewer dumb mistakes, or find more people who share them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 8:56 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 60 of 126 (711908)
11-24-2013 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by marc9000
11-23-2013 9:30 PM


Re: I guess I need to chip in here.
quote:

It's true that global warming hysteria would have been the dream of every brutal dictator that's ever existed in the past, as an easy way to gain control over the masses, that still doesn't change the fact that it's nothing but a big government farce.

No Marc, people LIKE YOU are the dream of every brutal dictator. Global warming may be against the political correctness of the Far Right. But it's a reality. Spewing hate and lies won't change that.

And if you want to avoid tyranny, wouldn't it be better to take strong action NOW to avert a potential crisis rather than just go on letting things get worse and worse until even more extreme measures are needed? The more extreme the crisis the greater the appeal of tyranny.

Alerting people to dangers, trying to encourage action to avert it is not tyranny, even if you personally - or the people who pay your politicians - don't like it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by marc9000, posted 11-23-2013 9:30 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Prev123
4
56
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019