minor correction: now that others have started quoting you on this, i thought i'd point out that the correct term is either "occam's razor" or "ockham's razor", with the former being a tad more popular: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html well, in my view, an action is immoral if a) it hurts others (people/animals) on the receiving end (considerably) more than it gains the initiator, and b) the initiator has a choice. hence, in my view, the "who's morality is better" is a meaningless question, because morality is only defined in context of a group. bingo! to me that's a very strong indication that religion is just a cultural phenomenon. whether it is a human reaction to true higher power, the wish to explain everything unknown, a group behaviour resulting in evolutionary advantage, or something else is of course another question. well, the technical answer to this is that time is a property of our universe, so "before" and "after" only have a meaning within the universe, not outside of it. of course, that does not mean that the scientific investigation should not attempt to go beyond our universe. if at all possible. - jaan
And has time property been linear/uniform since the beginning, or has it expanded/slowed down the farther we get from the beginning so that its appearance is dependant on the perspective in time of the observer? Another way to say it is "was time more dense in the past as matter was more dense?".
Which part - the carbon dating, or the fossilized bone less than 60 yrs old? Or the St Helens aftermath that all you need do is walk through and see and feel the limestone and leafs. I consider the source credible, because this particular individual (that I am thinking of and have spoken with) set out to prove the age of the earth and all related with it, in his own mind, but came to the conclusion that all is not as portrayed. Yes he is a scientist, a geology scientist. This is only one that I have talked to there are many here www.icr.org that you might find interesting. There is an ongoing daily test of debunking it. So far I have yet to be convinced. Just as you have yet to be convinced. No, it would not change my beliefs. If the earth is older so what does this prove, evolution? There is nothing to give evolution any validity, imo.
>>This brings up an interesting side point that the supposed insurmountable "problems" brought up with scriptural text generally come from either a) misinterpretation, or the simplistic parroting of incorrect theology, b) lack of philosophical understanding as to how a surface level contradiction is reconciled on a deeper level, or c) lack of linguistic understanding / incorrect cultural context resulting in incorrect assigning of meaning. LMAO!!! what dark is really saying here is the reader get to interpret the works in any way he likes. and when you come across a contradiction, an fallacy or inaccurate fact (and you will hehe) the reader gets to substitute his own meaning to make everything all right again. LOL! what a crock of BS. unbelievable. do you ever listen to yourself dark? :-D
Faster: What I'm saying is that the common criticisms brought against scripture are usually ignorant and surface level at best, intended misinterpretations or willfully ignorant misconceptions at worst. I probably haven't heard them all but sometimes I feel like I have. I love the sympathetic atheists who deem christians to be sadly stupid and doubt their ability to tie shoes or connect dots. Faster, I try not to intentionally insult those who disagree with me, let alone bring them to blows. You seem to take the opposite tack. If I didn't know better, I would swear you want me to take a swing at you. I don't understand why. Let's put my obvious stupidity aside for a moment and talk about you, faster. I would like to know why you are so mean spirited and why you so enjoy sticking needles in people. I guess what I'm asking is, what is your problem. And don't tell me it has anything to do with the subject at hand, because you've been this way on many other threads that have nothing to do with God. Please answer. Seriously.
Why can't you two agree to disagree???? Dark you really think you can convert this guy to your "camp" or ever make him believe??? PEACE and goodtrading, Commisso Oh and thank you for the healthy discussions Dark I truly did enjoy them
I have no interest in converting anyone singlehandedly with a few posts. In fact I spelled this out a ways back, find my whiffle ball bat analogy in here somewhere. I just don't get the mean spiritedness. It's unnecessary, demoralizing and sad.
Well I find humor in him... I have appreciated his posts since the RX days It's kind of refreshing... almost serves as a nice contrast... At any rate PEACE Justice
Faster: let me conclude by backing off a bit. You assume I am wrong, therefore all attempts to defend my position are fallacy, as it is fallacy by definition to defend a wrong position. I know I am right, therefore it is rational for me to defend my position. Therefore, as a defender of 'fallacy' I am perhaps stupid in your eyes. As a defender of truth, in my own eyes I am not. My faith is strong, your faith against my faith is strong. I take back my barbs, I can sling zingers too and deep down maybe you mean well. Call it wishy washy, call it a sharp tongue with second thoughts, call it what you will. Let's agree to disagree amicably, and if there is doubt regarding my intelligence, let us agree that I am not that smart. Let's even go so far as to say I am gullible, heartsmart rather than headsmart, too prone to intuition for my own good. You may consider me all those things and I will smile and not fight you anymore. I am not above taking a few labels for the cause of patching things up. I hope we can bury this bone of contention. This gullible fool is weary. Best wishes to all you guys.