Foreveryoung Discussions

Everytime I see his username the Rod Stewart song starts playing in my head. I find that it counters the vitriol found in most of his posts.

I for one applaud foreveryoung and offer him support as he goes through a most difficult transition. I understand how difficult this will be for him but also want to assure him that there is life after this. There can even be a continuing, more mature and far more interesting Christianity.

ahhh, I see. Problem with written language. Needs to be much more precise than spoken. Thanks for the clarification. I hope everyone understands what I meant now.Sorry for the lack of proper grammar to make my point clear.

Am I going mad or do they mean the same thing?

In the first one he needs Geography and in the second one he does not.He needs basic classes in just about everything, but probably (needs it in) Geology.He needs basic classes in just about everything but (except), probably, Geology.

Those are not mutually exclusive possibilities.As for the statements - I noticed the same ambiguity.The first reading emphasizes geology as the most important subject that needs to be studied.
The second reading excludes geology from what needs to be studied.

fey isn't a bad guy. He just has a tendency to take everything personally - if someone disagrees, he sees it as a personal attack.This thread, it seems to me, can only serve to make matters worse in this regard. He'll see this thread as an attack on him, even if it includes some positive words.I'd like for him to be able to engage in more dispassionate debate as well, as I'd really like for him to both stick around and not give himself an ulcer before he graduates college...but I'm not sure that this thread has a significant probability of any sort of positive outcome.

While I appreciate percy's efforts to get all of the postings regarding me into one thread instead of clogging up other threads, I don't know if that will prevent that from happening. There is one thing that just about everyone who participated in this thread brought up. They all unanimously agreed that I needed to take a course in whatever101 in all the major subjects. What they fail to recognize is that I have taken all of those 101 courses. Just because I pass a course doesn't mean that I agree with all the conclusions drawn by them. Another thing, is that many of my disagreements with posters on here regarding subjects they deem I am ignorant of are on sub sections of those subjects. They are the po litically controversial ones that many textbooks either avoid or professors avoid or just lightly touch on. The nub of the problem between me and most people on this forum is based on the fact that because I do not agree with their conclusions on 101 subjects taught in college, I must have never taken those courses or even exposed myself to them. This is arrogance and the basis for the intractable hostility between me and them. Their are so myopic in their thinking because they only talk to people who generally agree with them on these issues. They haven't been exposed to cogent, coherent arguments to the contrary. Because of this, they are unaware that there are other valid positions to be taken on many of the issues brought up here and that leads them to conclude that those who disagree with them are just simply ignorant. This is what makes you all stand in agreement with each other and state that I need to take all the basic college courses on every subject available. I am sorry, but college is not supposed to be an indoctrination program, but from the looks of you who have graduated from college and earned higher degrees, it doesn't look like that is the case. You guys don't even realize that you have been indoctrinated. That is how severe it is. I don't buy stuff intellectually hook line and sinker because it comes from a prof. I certainly don't buy it from you "educated" guys. It takes me a long time before I eventually come around to believing some things. It took me a very long time to eventually come around to believing the earth is indeed very, very old. Some of you will say that what keeps me from believing things for a very long time is my belief in God and a mostly literal bible. When those beliefs and the consensus of modern science are in contradiction, I am indeed slow to change my mind. Sorry if that bothers people but God is as real to me as the air I breathe. I have also come to the conclusion that I believe in a vastly different God than that of jar and nwr and others on here. That is also what makes me see things differently than they do.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

How much physics and chemistry have you taken?

One semester of physics and two semesters of chemistry. All sciences are divided into those for science majors and those for non science majors. I have taken all science major physics and chemistry and biology. This semester will also conclude 2 semesters of biology.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

I am curious how you decide what is controversial. When photons were discussed during physics, how did you come to the conclusion that photons did not exist? There was nothing in the Bible to guide you to this conclusion.What should I conclude about your knowledge of physics when you claim that the spin on a photon 'comes from what phase the wave is in'Or when you ask "Does a boson of any flavor even have any mass", why shouldn't I conclude that you don't know the definition of 'boson'? After all you don't have to accept the standard model to know whether a helium nucleus has mass. Did you conclude that the basic stuff that you were learning in chemistry about the periodic table was indoctrination and to be rejected? If so, what guided you to that conclusion? Was it the Bible? Surely the existence of helium does not contradict the Bible.When you ask, "What is so great about 5 standard deviations?" what should I think about your knowledge of statistics? Isn't in fact the significance of that measure rather obvious AND non-controversial?Some of the stuff you say is just inexplicable using the assumption that you have learned and simply rejected some concepts."If they are particles, they possess the phenomena of charge"Really? You cannot acknowledge even a single particle that has no charge?

If you've taken Paragraphs 101, even if you disagree with its dictums, could you employ them anyway?--Percy

ForeverYoung really said that? FEY, is this true?--Percy

I actually like this. Being slow to change ones mind is a world of difference from the vast majority of literalists who simply refuse to move their stance at all.I do wonder how you go about deciding what is literal and what is metaphorical but that is another thread in the making.

I suppose I could have provided links. The statement in question is lifted from Message 53.