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.
Ok, I think you are just pulling our legs there in some way.Everything started out as uranium I say.
Everything started out as uranium I say.
And how exactly did you interpret the source as meaning academics caused the French Revolution?French Revolutionary Time officially began on November 24, 1793 although conceptual work around the system had been going on since the 1750s. The French manufactured clocks and watches showing both decimal time and standard time on their faces (allowing for both conversion and confusion). These clock faces were spectacularly weird.
SOURCE
I can't believe someone can be so dumb.God has proprietary rights to science by virtue of having created it.
Unfortunately it can go both ways.Amusing. Made me smile.
Re the urban myth that "the bible says pi is 3" that I've seen some repeat on the internet with credulity (as if they had found a magic elixir), I wonder if we should burst their bubble though?....
But....thinking on it again today as someone posted to me about it -- I remember I should ideally be more sympathetic to someone caught up in that kind of thinking that a ratio of 3 instead of 3.1 etc. even matters the slightest to begin with....
Instead of beating them up verbally.
As I was just recalling (that it doesn't matter to most of us) in another post from someone's comment to me and I wrote in post #513 above -- that while the ratio of 3 being less precise is of no importance 90-95% of people, as most people will have just common sense this is a bowl and the measurements are using rounded stylistic numbers. This isn't a rocket design. (grin)
But that doesn't give me carte blanche to thrash someone that gets hung up about it -- as I actually saw someone posting about this once a year or 3 back and might have thrashed them a little (I don't recall)....
So, to correct: I don't need to 'burst their bubble' cruelly for their poor thinking, but instead should attempt (if I can) to help them think better with a more friendly post....lol...sure it's a long shot maybe at times (that someone will change their thinking), but maybe this one is a case where it's easier to get them to gain a new perspective.
So, I should be kind even when someone has little sense about stylistic wording regarding numbers in the text, and wanted to trash the text. I shouldn't then trash them.
How is it we can have patience with the worst human foibles though (like a tendency to go for cheap and foolish claims (which I've actually seen on this one) that the stylistic ratio of 3 in the text disproves the Bible in some broader way) ?.....
Only by thinking of a better way, a better attitude, like that of Christ, perhaps, yes?
So, instead of thrashing them, I'll try to remember to be kind.
I on the other hand would not be so barbaric, I'd put you on the Space Ark along with the telephone sanitisers,
I can use my own personal experiences such as being labelled a crook for supporting a scientific position ...
The story behind the Space Ark.Please!
Not them!
I get annoyed with those who sanitize their doorknobs, counter tops, phones, light switches, and every other contact surface.
Unfortunately it can go both ways.
There are Christians in this forum who are not only incapable of respectively disagreeing of the opinions of others but also believe their perceived opponents are morally and ethically inferior.
I can use my own personal experiences such as being labelled a crook for supporting a scientific position or a fraud for posting one of my still images of Jupiter, or the remark my sister should burn in hell for being an atheist irrespective of her occupation as a psychologist in helping those in need.
(BB, evolution) being things I accepted long before I lost my religion.
You want to go down this line again and I suppose your marching orders were also hypothetical.If you're pouting about that IAU vote, methinks it was your alter ego that was so labeled.
Remember: you set it up as a hypothetical.
Makes me wonder than why creationist are against science as much as they are. It makes no sense.God has proprietary rights to science by virtue of having created it.
Creationists hate making sense.Makes me wonder than why creationist are against science as much as they are. It makes no sense.
Makes me wonder than why creationist are against science as much as they are. It makes no sense.
Creationists hate making sense.
How could I forget the Exodus episode.Or you've labeled an atheist for supporting a scientific position counter to a specific doctrine held by some, but not all Christians (YEC, mass exodus from Egypt, ...)
For people like me the near-same group assumes that my non-acceptance of their position is due to my "atheism" and I get lovely constructs like "the atheist science position..." despite most of those (BB, evolution) being things I accepted long before I lost my religion. (The exodus thing is something I have learned about more recently [maybe 20 years ago], so that isn't one of them. I nearly tagged you into a set of claims about the historicity of the Exodus, but it was in the News/Pol sections. I'll give you one guess as to why the counter argument was being made.]
Maybe I should change my tag to include intellectual.... Hmmm....
How could I forget the Exodus episode.
If I was a citizen of your country I would be in the 70% of Christians where the Bible is not a literal account, and as a historical source can only be valid if supported by archeological evidence.
I'm sure most of the 70% would think the same way.
As has been pointed out by various posters you violate your Prime Directive frequently without realizing it.If they are, it's because of the backlash that follows.
I'm a good example.
When I put for this "sense," I get all kinds of backlash and ridicule for it.
1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.
What I'm not understanding is how can science be against creation when it opens a window into the creation process.Creationists are against the science that is against creation.
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?