My Word Challenge

[AV1611VET]

AV, please define the word "Old", in the context of, "I asked Mrs Smith how old she was."

Old = how many times Mrs Smith has gone around the sun.

 

[Orogeny]

As in transubstantiation?

 

[AV1611VET]

You're not making light of 'The Most Blessed Sacrament', are you?

If so, is that a mortal sin or a venial sin?

 

[Orogeny]

You're not making light of 'The Most Blessed Sacrament', are you?

If so, is that a mortal sin or a venial sin?

 

[Jazer]

Correct! It shows us that the bible is not to be used in any way, shape, or form as a scientific text, and that much of the bible's text may be best taken as allegory.

That just goes to show you know nothing about science.
The more you know science then the more you would know the Bible is true.

 

[Orogeny]

That just goes to show you know nothing about science.
The more you know science then the more you would know the Bible is true.

I'm glad that you, a theater major/construction worker, are here to tell me, a geologist, how much I know about science.

What would I do without you, buddy?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm glad that you, a theater major/construction worker, are here to tell me, a geologist, how much I know about science.

What would I do without you, buddy?

If that bothers you, you'd really love what Jesus said:

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[Orogeny]

If you're not going to post about physical or life sciences, AV, then you should vacate the forums. It's the Christian thing to do.

 

[RickG]

If you're not going to post about physical or life sciences, AV, then you should vacate the forums. It's the Christian thing to do.

In support of that comment I just want to add the following input.

As I visit some of the other forms (non science) , I see much of the discussion focused on the actual thread topics with people sharing ideas and information. The people there are actually informed on the topics of discussion or are there seeking information to gain a better understanding.

When visiting the physical & life science forums, I see some people who are not at all interested in sharing ideas and information, but instead are constantly posting off topic and in a number of cases, appear to be doing nothing more than trying to get adverse reactions.

Then I think, suppose I went to those other forums and behaved in such a manner. I would suspect that there would be some rather stern moderation enforcement against that type of behavior.

There is nothing wrong with different views and disagreement. But in a science forum I expect those opposing views to be discussing in a scientific manner sharing scientific information and ideas, not ridiculous absurd comments, condemnation of science, and misdirection of the specific topics. Indeed, I think that behavior is not in keeping with Christian values.

 

[Cabal]

Oh look, the Christian McCarthyists are at it again.

 

[AV1611VET]

In support of that comment I just want to add the following input.

As I visit some of the other forms (non science) , I see much of the discussion focused on the actual thread topics with people sharing ideas and information. The people there are actually informed on the topics of discussion or are there seeking information to gain a better understanding.

When visiting the physical & life science forums, I see some people who are not at all interested in sharing ideas and information, but instead are constantly posting off topic and in a number of cases, appear to be doing nothing more than trying to get adverse reactions.

Then I think, suppose I went to those other forums and behaved in such a manner. I would suspect that there would be some rather stern moderation enforcement against that type of behavior.

There is nothing wrong with different views and disagreement. But in a science forum I expect those opposing views to be discussing in a scientific manner sharing scientific information and ideas, not ridiculous absurd comments, condemnation of science, and misdirection of the specific topics. Indeed, I think that behavior is not in keeping with Christian values.

Oh, please.

I can't start a thread and say Jesus walked on water without an Internet scientist showing up to shove a clipboard into the conversation.

I've asked the moderators to close more of my own threads (because of 'noise'), than you have started threads here.

And the Internet scientists who chime in to tell me I'm wrong about creationism or the Flood, know about as much doctrine than I do science.

There are exceptions, like Split Rock and Thaumaturgy, but their divorcement from theology to embrace scientism has caused them to get a few refresher points from those who know their doctrines.

As I like to point out: I correct you guys much more than you guys correct me.

So I'd say your point here applies more to your whitecoated contemporaries, than it does us.

 

[RickG]

Oh, please.

I can't start a thread and say Jesus walked on water without an Internet scientist showing up to shove a clipboard into the conversation.

I'm not an Internet scientist. I actually have hard earned academic credentials (M.S. Physical Earth Science, Univ. of Memphis, 1977). This is a physical and life science forum, is it not?

Please start such thread, but if you post it in the science forum let's discuss the science surrounding that. If you wish to discuss it in terms of theology and doctrine, then it should be posted in one of those forums.

I've asked the moderators to close more of my own threads (because of 'noise'), than you have started threads here.

So only new people entering the forums have to follow the rules?

And the Internet scientists who chime in to tell me I'm wrong about creationism or the Flood, know about as much doctrine than I do science.

I hope you are not suggesting that people with scientific knowledge do not or cannot have theological knowledge as well. What they are doing is presenting scientific ideas and knowledge in a science forum. If you disagree with what they say, then do so with science.

There are exceptions, like Split Rock and Thaumaturgy, but their divorcement from theology to embrace scientism has caused them to get a few refresher points from those who know their doctrines.

From what I have seen in my short time here is that they (Split Rock & Thaumaturgy) are here to discuss science in a science forum. They produce an enormous amount of factual information in a non offensive polite manner. I think their intention, as well as mine, is to point out and correct misinformation and misunderstanding about science, not to change peoples religious views.

As I like to point out: I correct you guys much more than you guys correct me.

Really, I have yet to see any scientific discussion in any of your posts.

So I'd say your point here applies more to your whitecoated contemporaries, than it does us.

I would say it applies to everyone. Suppose I put the tag under my avatar, "religion can take a hike", and begin posting in one of the theology forums. I don't think it would be accepted very well. The rules apply to us all regardless of the length of time we have been members of the Christian Forums.

God Bless

 

[Tiberius]

Old = how many times Mrs Smith has gone around the sun.

Ya huh.

You already said that, in post 2 of this thread.

Now, if you'll go back and have a close look at my last question to you, I was asking you to define "age" in the context of "embedded age".

Now, since you say the Earth has an embedded age some billions of years, then obviously this definition doesn't work. After all, the Earth cannot have gone around the sun billions of times in only 6015 years, can it!

So in the context of "embedded age", "age" cannot mean how many times it has gone around the sun!

So, I ask again, please define "age" in the context of embedded age.

 

[qualitas occulta]

their divorcement from theology to embrace scientism has caused them to get a few refresher points from those who know their doctrines.

There's a very big difference between rejecting scientism and rejecting science.

You're already rejecting science by the mention of more hare-brained theories (Split Rock, Thaumaturgy) you favor, not the least of which is the theory that you've been unable to support from since you set foot with the very first post on this thread.

 

[razeontherock]

Your new tagline is too funny

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a very big difference between rejecting scientism and rejecting science.

You're already rejecting science by the mention of more hare-brained theories (Split Rock, Thaumaturgy) you favor, not the least of which is the theory that you've been unable to support from since you set foot with the very first post on this thread.

Accepting ex nihilo creationism isn't rejecting science?

Is there anything in the Bible I can believe without rejecting science?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, the existence of Egypt.

Now, AV, if you could define "Age" in the context of "Emdedded age"?

 

[Tiberius]

Yo, AV, I'm still waiting for you to define "age" in the context of "Embedded age".

 

[Naraoia]

Yo, AV, I'm still waiting for you to define "age" in the context of "Embedded age".

Keep waiting!

 

[AV1611VET]

Yo, AV, I'm still waiting for you to define "age" in the context of "Embedded age".

Ya -- well you can k...

Keep waiting!

Nevermind --