I've GOT to get to Wal-Mart!

Vene said:

AV ignores the fact that our government is de facto ran by Christians.

Click to expand...

Shhhhhh. Don't tell him that. Many christians need to think someone else is in charge so they can say they are "persecuted".

AV1611VET said:

As I have said before, I wasn't called to be a scientist. God didn't gift me here for that purpose

Click to expand...

Stop calling it a "gift". You obviously consider the same kind of gift as pile of feces with a pretty bow. Otherwise you wouldn't tell science it can "take a hike" repeatedly.

And as you guys so plainly make it: whether a person is technologically-challenged like I am, or scientifically-educated like [the late] Dr Henry Morris, it [really] means nothing to you guys.

The only thing that matters to you guys is Who we stand for.

Click to expand...

WRONG. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

I personally have many more friends who are Christian than atheist. The person I think is the smartest living human I have ever met (or ever likely will meet) is one of my closest friends. He's a christian and a philosophy professor with a significant expetise in medieval christian thought. I have one friend whom I respect so much I've written several letters of reference for him. He's a very strongly outspoken Christian and even a "creationist".

Funny how you can be so very, very wrong.

Would you pay more attention to a point shot down by Dispensation Theology, if the Dispensationalist was a holder of a Ph.D. in Geology, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry?

Click to expand...

Dispensation theology hasn't got a say in anything in geology or chemistry. I've worked in both fields.

Would you pay less attention to a point shot down by Dispensation Theology, if the Dispensationalist was a holder of an AA in Business Administration

Click to expand...

So is Dispensational Theology important in Business Administration? It certainly stands to reason since we appear to be entering the most recent dispensation of "Moron Business" if the current economy is any example.

AV1611VET said:

(but then, I have a Christian icon, so I guess I'm a magnet for this sort of stuff).

Click to expand...

It isn't your "Christian Icon" that draws people to criticize your commentary, AV. It is the material you post (your non-stop pride in your ignorance of science mixed in with your constant criticism of science and telling it, it can take a hike). However, that all being said, you at least know some things in science like Rayleigh Scattering. Kudos. Now expand it to include those areas you often discuss like the Noachian Flood and geology.

But if you need to feel persecuted, you can just make up whatever excuse you want to.

Now, if your "Christianity" requires you to be;

1. Proud of your personal ignorance
2. Attack fields you have confessed you are unfamiliar with

Well, you can line me up with attacking that particular "theology". But since I personally know that isn't a necessary part of Christianity, again, it isn't because of your Christianity you get responses as you get.

Again, you're preaching to the choir here. Save that for Thaumaturgy or MrGoodBytes or whomever. I'll be waiting to see what they [don't] have to say.

Click to expand...

Ha ha! Well, indeed the sky does "appear blue". You see, AV, the kind of chemistry I do is related to "coatings", so I've spent quite a bit of time doing something called "Colorimetry" over the years (NOTE: not calorimetry, but colorimetry). This is a very unique and interesting field but relies on color as containing aspects not only of the spectral power distribution of incoming radiation, but also the perception of an observer.

I recommend you read up on it a bit. LINKY LINKY2

(I bet you won't care enough about this to bother with it either! But isn't it amazing to you how you can be beaten to the punch by a scientist again and again! It amazes me how scientists are so curious and adaptable that we find ourselves learning life-long. It never stops for us. That is what makes our lives rich. I feel for folks who stopped learning after they got their Associates Degree.)

But more to Psudopod's point; science "explains" in that it attempts to understand as best it can. We realize we are flawed and human and will likely never know everything. Unlike some folks who, mysteriously, think they have a "lock" on absolute TRUTH (c) but can't really defend it worth much.

Maybe more learning is in order for them.

That's our fault, Psudopod. We Christian don't make enough money to be taxed for your programs; and the ones that do belong in prison, right?

Click to expand...

Do you think "theoretical physicists" and scientists in general make a lot of money???? Oh my! You can't be that hilariously naive. Maybe I'm missing your point here.

You see, I'll never see as much money in my lifetime as the dude who majored in Business Management down the aisle from me. Few people go into science for the big bucks.

"Ignorance can take a hike"
"Pride of ignorance can take a hike"

faster_jackrabbit said:

Shhhhhh. Don't tell him that. Many christians need to think someone else is in charge so they can say they are "persecuted".

Click to expand...

It's so very important for the majority to feel persecuted. That's nice for them.

The minute I see an open atheist stand even a marginal chance in the Presidential Election in the U.S. ...

Best explanation I've gotten yet --- if it's true. What's the difference between a science magazine and a science journal?

Click to expand...

Journals are peer reviewed. Magazines are not. Magazines are also aimed at a much more general audience, where as a journal article would be written with the authors peers in mind. Magazines sell with catch headlines like the one displayed, but aritcles don't don't have the same level of detail that you'd get from a journal, and often features like that haven't come directly from a peer reviewed article.

Ya --- it's called the Rayleigh Effect --- or some such thing --- (I think). The Rayleigh Effect = truth?

Click to expand...

Yeah, the Rayleigh effect is the correct term, but it's an explanation, not an observation. However it ties in so well to the observation, that we can consider it a good working approximation for the turth. Maybe further down the line we'll find out that it's not quite acurate enough, and a modified explanation will have to be delvolped. But I predict if this does happen, it will be very similar to the rayleigh effect.

It's like Newtonian dynamics. For a long time, we used newton's equations of motion to predict and model the behaviour of moving bodies. And it worked very well, until we improved out technology and began to get more acurate measuring devices and reach faster speeds. And we found out there was a bit more to it than Newton had realised. But Newton's equations aren't wrong, they just only hold under a limited set of conditions. If you go out of those conditions, you need to consider extra factors. Science that gives predictable, measureable results is rarely wrong, it's just not always the whole picture.

I don't mind you "good scientists" questioning each other, but when you tell us we're wrong on certain issues (the Creation, in my case), I get irritated. Especially when you tell us we're wrong because it doesn't fit some computer program you guys wrote.

Click to expand...

We don't tell you you're wrong because it disagrees with the explanation, but because it disagrees with the evidence. And no one should be telling you that creation is false. Because we can't know that. All we can comment on is how that creation appears to have happened. The problem you have is that why does a methodology work acurately for things you have no problem accepting, but suddenly falls apart when it gives answers you don't like?

That's our fault, Psudopod. We Christian don't make enough money to be taxed for your programs; and the ones that do belong in prison, right?

Click to expand...

Now you've lost me. We don't have these instuments because the human race lacks the technological skill to build them. It's got nothing to do with Christians.

AV1611VET said:

QED - (so far).

Looks like the only way scientists are going to line up and start lecturing on "truth doesn't exist except for alcohol and mathematics" is to have someone with a Christian icon say something is "true".

Click to expand...

It's "proof that doesn't exist except for alcohol and mathematics"

Do you think before you type? [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] does truth have to do with alcohol?

Truth exists in reality but because human observation and intellect is imperfect we probably will never get to the point of having absolute truth but we can get pretty close.

TemperateSeaIsland beat me to it. Proof and truth are two different concepts. Proof is rigours set of steps that demonstrates a statement's truth and is not wrong at any point. (Or the percentage of alcohol in a drink). Truth is quality that can be applied even if it cannot be demonstrated. For example, God's existance could be true, but we cannot demonstrate it. It's a truth that has to be taken on faith.

If I have a length of string, it is a true statement that the string has a finite length. There is a number that represents the true length of the string. But we might never know exactly what that value is because we may never be able to measure acurately enough. If I measure the string to be 12cm long, this is an aproximation to the truth. If I measure it to be 12.0005cm long, this is a closer approximation to the truth.

AV1611VET said:

Which one convinced you (or failed to convince you) that slavery is Biblical?

Click to expand...

Oh, so you think the only way I get ideas is from listening to someone tell me something? Nah, in that case I got it from reading history. Since it is an historical fact that some Christians in the South used the Bible to justify slavery as it was practiced in the U.S.

I also have read the Bible and find somewhat troubling passages about buying people

Gen17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

(would you mind if I "bought" you and then conducted "outpatient surgery" on you?)

Ex 12:44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.

of course I'm sure you see that as "pay for service". But again there's that unpleasantness of forcing someone else's religious requirements on another.

Gen 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

Now, I'm sure I don't need to tell you about some of the definitions of the Hebrew word ebed, so I'll let the Concordance Bible explain it to you:

Strongs_Concordance said:

ebed: a servant, who amongst the Hebrews was commonly a slave; (NOTE: This is only part of Strongs Concordance H5650, it also includes the apparent non-slave definition as well, cf concordance)

Click to expand...

Now, of course there are other definitions of ebed. So, as I've said numerous time before, you can interpret these as you wish, whatever makes you feel good. Personally since I find ownership of another human being repellent in every way conceivable and I'm sure you are like-minded, I can see why you'd desperately want God to use the other hebrew uses of this word, despite the fact we are talking about "buying" people and then "setting them free" after a given time. Or we are talking about "buying" people followed by enacting your physical will on them (circumcision) by fiat of your religion, well I tend to find that to be somewhat complicit in a lack of oprobrium for "slavery".

But again, you and I are not arguing over the goodness or evil of slavery. Just the historical fact that some Christians have used the Bible to justify slavery.

If you insist on selectively ignoring history as you selectively ignore science then, of course, you are not annoying people with your "Christianity", but rather with your love of your ignorance.

See how that works?

AV1611VET said:

QED - (so far).

Looks like the only way scientists are going to line up and start lecturing on "truth doesn't exist except for alcohol and mathematics" is to have someone with a Christian icon say something is "true".

Click to expand...

Wow, you missed that point. I'll have to correct you yet again.

I believe there is "Truth", and like most scientists I know I may never know truth completely. That's what I meant.

What kind of point are you trying to twist out of my words?

I am a scientist and a human and I have some amount of humility so I know I may never know absolute truth. Science never claims absolute proof of anything and we know that what we think is truth can always be made more full. Ergo it may not be "absolute".

Your Christian Icon has nothing to do with your claims. Your "Truth" claims are usually simply ex cathedra statements that we question.

OBVIOUSLY we believe that Truth is out there somewhere, but we aren't so proud of ourselves to think we could ever have it absolutely 100%.

That kind of self-love and pride takes religious faith to accomodate.

Bringing this a bit more on topic, I've read a bit about the 'big bounce' and amazingly, it doesn't contradict the big bang theory. The idea is just that the universe expands, is condensed back into a singularity then it expands, and so on. Whether or not it's right beats me, I don't have a background in either quantum physics or cosmology.

Vene said:

Bringing this a bit more on topic, I've read a bit about the 'big bounce' and amazingly, it doesn't contradict the big bang theory. The idea is just that the universe expands, is condensed back into a singularity then it expands, and so on. Whether or not it's right beats me, I don't have a background in either quantum physics or cosmology.

Click to expand...

I am in the same boat. It seems that Hawking's exhortations to avoid trying to assign "meaning" for "what happened before the big bang" may well hold. It seems not unlike a discontinuous function in mathematics.

But I'm sure the subtlety of "scientists having fun" trying to hypothesize stuff is confusing to folks like AV. We spend so much time telling them that "just so" stories and "flights of fancy" no matter how fun they'd be aren't really science.

What I think is going on in cosmology is an attempt to put the model out there to see if anyone can think of a "test" to verify it or a falsifiability criterion to dismiss it or test it. I don't think anyone thinks that any of this is "proven" or necessarily truth.

I admit we scientists and folks with some education do tend to overshoot the simpler end of the audience and fail to line it out in "3rd grade level". It's like adults talking around children, sometimes we slip up and the toddlers, who are sticklers for rules told to them, will insist that rules they have learned not be bent. Which is fine, until you realize that rules for toddlers are often, by necessity, black-and-white and real life for adults is often shades of grey.

Scientists talk about string theory a lot but to my knowledge no one has provided any proof of it.

The real difference between "Creationist Just-So Stories" and "Scientific blue-sky conjecture" is that scientists don't take "blue sky conjecture" as the inerrant Truth-with-a-capital-T (c). They take it as conjecture until proven.

But again, I'm not a cosmologist, so I don't have too much info on these particular conjectures.

Hey AV - check this thread out.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7290352

AV1611VET said:

I notice too that when something in the Bible is evil, it's treated as if it absolutely happened. Even using technical terms to describe it; "genocide", "mass slaughter", "indentured servant", etc.

Click to expand...

Actually, I've heard people say the Flood was impossible, then turn around and condem God for drowning all those poor people. Tryin' to get it both ways I guess.

TeddyKGB said:

You are not right in the head.

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

Let's just say I'm "disabled" and leave it at that ---

Click to expand...

Finally. Truth.

Garyzenuf said:

Actually, I've heard people say the Flood was impossible, then turn around and condem God for drowning all those poor people. Tryin' to get it both ways I guess.

Click to expand...

nobody is attacking God, they're just attacking the literalist's idea of God. The people "attacking God" in this way either don't believe in God or believe God did not cause the flood.

Avatar said:

Finally. Truth.

Click to expand...

You know that the "vet" in his screen name indicates that he's a military vet? If i recall correctly he stated that in the other thread.

I suppose you're canadian, but here in texas you're in some deep stew if you make fun of disabled military vets.