Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You interviewed to work with lasers but can't even spell "laser"?My entire career was in Research and Development so I know how Scientists do their work. Very very normally as anyone else does their work. Chock full of bias and ego and the constant search for profits. I even interviewed with a Head Researcher in a Lazer Lab and asked him about doing "Basic Research" as the job description suggested. He was looking at how lazers changed the properties of plastics and metals to restrict or filter differing frequencies in optical fibers.
He explained that all research was for profit.
I know how Scientists do their work. The Real World.My points stand.
You dont understand science or the scientific method.
I know how Scientists do their work. The Real World.
It's far more applicable than theory.
Yes, I do.No, you dont.
Yes, I do.
Science is, of course, a human endeavour, and as such it's subject to human flaws, but it is organised so as to minimise, as far as possible, the potential problems caused by individual scientists and their flaws.My entire career was in Research and Development so I know how Scientists do their work.
Very very normally as anyone else does their work. Chock full of bias and ego and the constant search for profits. I even interviewed with a Head Researcher in a Lazer Lab and asked him about doing "Basic Research" as the job description suggested. He was looking at how lazers changed the properties of plastics and metals to restrict or filter differing frequencies in optical fibers.
He explained that all research was for profit.
No.
The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth by the interviewer.
An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.
This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.
It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.
It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.
The problem is that it's not "obvious"
Yes it is and you just as much as admitted it in your statement above. That is "you" pointing out the incredibly obvious meaning for "lifeless rock" in that quote above.
the point remains. We can all see ... and apparently that includes you.
.
It's obvious to me.
It is only now obvious that you explicitly stated it.Hint: this is "you" admitting "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth"
Now you want to claim it is not obvious to both sides when you already admitted that you "can see" this very basic detail clearly?
seriously?
Well then we do agree on something after all.
Hint: this is "you" admitting "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth"
Now you want to claim it is not obvious to both sides when you already admitted that you "can see" this very basic detail clearly?
seriously?
The claim that an electron "has a property in it" that determines that a rock will turn into a rabbit over time (given an earth sized rock and a lot of time) is a "story". And if you want to call it "a story named emergence" I am fine with that.
I know I look really stu-pid but it's supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery, so....I notice that this section of the forum often reduces to "did too.... did not" posts. I get pulled into those now and then as well.
No.
The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth by the interviewer.
An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.
This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.
It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.
It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.
The problem is that it's not "obvious"
Yes it is and you just as much as admitted it in your statement above. That is "you" pointing out the incredibly obvious meaning for "lifeless rock" in that quote above.
the point remains. We can all see ... and apparently that includes you.
.
It's obvious to me.
It is only now obvious that you explicitly stated it. .
I'm not talking about anyone else's posts here. I'm specifically referring to your posts and the language you use in describing things.
A. Everyone agrees (both Creationist and atheist at least) that there was a time on Earth where it is a barren planet - no LIFE of any kind on it. So gas, rocks, water, dust etc... no life.
B. Everyone agrees (both Creationist and atheist at least) that we exist on earth today with lots of diverse life forms.
I am talking about the fact that you already admitted to seeing the easy and obvious point that - "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" - so continually circling back to claim you could not see that obvious detail in the OP is a bit of nonsense.
You have accepted that "lifeless rock" refers to an earlier Earth, which you defined as having "....gas, rocks, water, dust etc". So why do you keep claiming it is just rock - no gas, no water, no dust?Hint: this is "you" admitting "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth"
Now you want to claim it is not obvious to both sides when you already admitted that you "can see" this very basic detail clearly?
seriously?
Well then we do agree on something after all.
hint: that was Pitabread admitting to it as well.
"The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" -- not only in the OP but also in that interview with Miller.
It just "does not GET " any easier than that!
I am talking about the fact that you already admitted to seeing the easy and obvious point that - "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" - so continually circling back to claim you could not see that obvious detail in the OP is a bit of nonsense.
That's completely disingenuous.hint: that was Pitabread admitting to it as well.
"The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" -- not only in the OP but also in that interview with Miller.
It just "does not GET " any easier than that!
Are you suggesting a time in history when absolutely no life existed on Earth? How do you know this?An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.
This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.
It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.
It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?