17 WAYS TO BE A GOOD LIBERAL

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 16 2007, 08:04 AM) [snapback]496878[/snapback]</div>

Specifically 4004 BC? Seriously how would anyone know specifically what year the earth was made? I do believe in a young earth however. What age do you believe the earth to be and why does this sicken you?



Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 14 2007, 10:40 PM) [snapback]495831[/snapback]</div>

Ho ho! Why don't you move to Mass. and find out for yourself how well that's working? Ask some of the people who are choosing to remain uninsured because the "universal" coverage (a.k.a. people are universally forced to pay for it themselves) is more expensive than the penalties paid during tax season for not having health insurance.

Romney is a master salesman. You can buy any variety of snake oil from him.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 16 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]497052[/snapback]</div>

Somewhere about 4.5 billion year old. Like you said, it is hard to calculate the exact date but this is close enough. What sickens me is the reluctance to let go of religious dogma in the face of new evidence. Especially one that really does not serve any good purpose that cannot be exhibited without religious backing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 16 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]497075[/snapback]</div>

This is the same as someone with only a little knowledge of instrument engineering refusing to fly because he thinks accurately measuring barometric pressure to the nearest 5 feet using just a flexible diaphragm stretched over a can just doesn't cut it in his book (i.e. altimeters can't work). He doesn't make this assessment based on any in-depth knowledge, or experience, but just "faith" in some "horse sense" gut feeling. The fact that altimeters do work, and have worked successfuly in aircraft for over a century makes no impression on him: he "knows" he's right and having made up his mind, neither evidence nor reason will move nor crack his cast-in-concrete (fossilized) belief.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 16 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]497075[/snapback]</div>

It appears you already do when you proclaim a belief in the bible or god....

There is much more evidence from radiometric dating and the multitude of associated dating methods (dendrochronology, oxygen isotopes, stratigraphy, palinoglogy, etc.) that ALL agree with each other than the evidence of a book that self-proclaims its validity.

When estimating the age of an item one can cross reference with other dating methods to ensure the date is accurate or as accurate as it can be in that context since not all items can utilize the same methods of dating.

IE, when dating an ancient tree branch one can use the "carbon dating" method. Then we could use dendrochonology to verify the date by matching up tree ring data. One can then look for other local fossil evidence like pollen to verify the climate and guage the widths of the tree rings to verify the pollen evidence, or the isotope concentrations like oxygen 18/16, or mineral formations (manganese or iron nodules, cap carbonates etc.). When one understands the relationships between these methods it is rather hard, IMO, to refute the picture they paint.

Remember that this is the same sort of science you rely on every day for your health, transportation, communication, etc. It is basic chemistry, physics, biology, mathematics. So to shrug them off as inaccurate because it doesn't fit a picture that was painted for you throughout your childhood is a bit self-deluding no?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 16 2007, 01:48 PM) [snapback]497102[/snapback]</div>

I'm always amazed when people benefit from scientific inquiry, discovery, application, and advancement 24/7 and take for granted its infinite uses, but then at the same time denies its importance and relevance. All the jesus freaks here know that the internet was created based on scientific principle right? Medicine? Transportation? The use of gasoline? Engineering? Just to name a few? Come on people. Wake up.

 

Yet, it is very hard for someone to spend 10-30 years of their life fully accepting one thing and then simply throw that idea out the window and adopt a new line of thinking. Objects AND IDEAS in motion tend to stay in motion. It will take a couple of generations for religion in this world to adapt to the rapid growth in knowledge over the last 100 years (or be replaced). An idea that has fully permeated mankind's conscienceness for thousands of years will not simply disappear overnight. And those most invested (emotionally as well as financially) in it will continue to fight the change.

Hell, mankind is still trying to adapt to the radical change of women's equality. For all of mankind's history, women were held as subservant to men. This all changed in the last 100 years and we are still dealing with the shakout from that sociological change. There are still sexists and there are still many countries where the old view is still prominent.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 16 2007, 01:15 PM) [snapback]497192[/snapback]</div>

Even more interesting is the principles of the internet (global networking) are quite similar to DNA recombining that has been utilized by bacteria for over 3 billion years. Nature beat us to it again! Screw Al Gore, he didn't invent it!

"Horizontal genetic transfer among bateria is as if you jumped into a pool with brown eyes and came out with blue eyes" Lynn Margulis

"This gene transfer takes place continually, with many bateria changing up to 15% of their genetic material on a daily basis. As Margulis explains, "When you threaten a bacterium, it will spill its DNA into the environment, and everyone around picks it up; and in a few months it will go all the way around the world." ~ Fritjof Capra (The Hidden Connections)

Isn't nature wonderful? Now even the lay person can have a better understanding of what Einstein and Hawkings were talking about when they mention "the mind of god".

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 16 2007, 01:26 PM) [snapback]497200[/snapback]</div>

I've read it generally takes about 100 years for a culture to shake off particular ideas or values in the face of new evidence. I am to assume this is because the folks that refuse to assimilate the new information, and hold true to dogma, must die off before their influence is eliminated and subsequent generations are exposed to less and less of the particular dogma and find it easier to cast off the old values. Could this be evident in our society now where more and more people list themselves as "spiritual" but not religious? Meaning, they still believe in a god but they recognize dogmatic religion for what it is. Unfounded and without evidence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 16 2007, 03:15 PM) [snapback]497192[/snapback]</div>

Burritos - Do you blame Christianity for everything you don't like? How come you don't go after Islam, or Hindu. or Wicca or any other faith based belief system? Is it because it isn't politically correct to say those things?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(05_SilverPri @ Aug 16 2007, 03:42 PM) [snapback]497216[/snapback]</div>

Those religions are a bunch of BS too, but they don't try to impose their values on the laws that deal with me and my family.

 

"but they don't try to impose their values on the laws that deal with me and my family."
Doesn't mean they wouldn't like to!

Burritos, with all due respect, (since I am not religious myself and pretty much agree with you) you are far to angry at religion and religious people. Your lack of patience for a MAJOR sociological change regarding religion is working against your desire to see religion fade away. You are trying to convert people to your view by smacking them over the head. If someone is quaisi-religious and you wish to "convert" them or "Impose your values" (as you accuse the other side of doing) you need to use more tact.

Your repulsion of religion seems to indicate a forced religious upbringing that you deeply resent. Maybe even an unethical clergyman. Most religious people mean well and you can't fault them for that or for having beliefs ingrained in them by their parents.
Anyways, I just feel your anger is counterproductive, and you be better served toning down your criticism of people's very emotional belief systems.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Aug 16 2007, 04:19 PM) [snapback]497252[/snapback]</div>

Nope. Didn't go to church. Not raised in a religious household. Not even molested. Did go to a preschool where they served some of the religious kool aid. Remember asking my little sister, "Do you love God more than our parents? You should." Soon I realized that was a bunch of BS. Didn't take much thought about it afterwards.

Then 7 years ago the religious right took over the white house, senate, and the congress. They started passing a bunch of BS bills that were pro corporations, pro rich, and anti environment. A 100% tax deduction for SUV's over 6000 lbs, Wth?!? Can't people see how retarded that is?Not many bills were religious related, but the religious jesus freaks were brought out to vote like zombie mobs whenever the call to arms against gay marriage, abortion and hating mexicans were announced. So am I pissed? Enough to lob a few jabs at the jesus freaks here who will never ever change their minds. Maybe they'll I'll get a rise from them. Maybe not. Certainly justified considering the pain progressives have endured that last half decade. So what? they lob their not so witty retorts back. I don't lose sleep, doubt they will either. It's like vegas. What happens here in FHOP, stays in FHOP.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 16 2007, 11:15 AM) [snapback]497066[/snapback]</div>

What new evidence and which method do you prefer to date the earth at 4.5 bills?

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 16 2007, 09:09 PM) [snapback]497488[/snapback]</div>

We've done this before but here we go. The age of the earth is a scientific fact demonstrated by the methods discussed in this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

There is no room for argument. If you want to be a contrarian you have to come up with something that has already not been refuted in that faq.

 

Double post...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 16 2007, 08:03 PM) [snapback]497515[/snapback]</div>

Alric pretty much covered it. Hell even records of magnetic flips go back further than the estimated age presented by young earth proponents. Unless they would like to say that tectonic plates moves much faster 6,000 yrs ago and can figure out a way to explain the problems that idea would present when compared to the myriad of other dating techniques and fossil evidence.

 

I'm not going to hijack this topic ( I know it's too late <_< ) so I will attempt to move this part over to this topic

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 16 2007, 10:08 PM) [snapback]497519[/snapback]</div>

I don't understand why most everything on the earth isn't the same age. Sure much of the elements have different radioactive characteristics that decay in unique ways which give some molecules different ages relative to each other. However, haven't the atoms that make up my body been here on earth pretty much the same time as the molecules that made up the dinosaurs, independent of the fact that some of my carbon is c14 vs c12?