Stven Hawking SAYS SO!

[DeputyMarshal]

According to my theory

Please take a geology class.

To me it makes much more sense in scientific terms that the Grand Canyon is a result of recent events and not millions of years.

Only if you presume a flood for which we have no evidence and ignore a rather large body of geological knowledge accumulated over the last few centuries. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

I am an engineer and have a very analytical mind.

Then I would suggest applying it to actual facts.

I do have great faith that the Bible is true in its account of the Creator and creation.

While there may be a philosophical argument to suggest that the Bible may contain figurative truths, the notion that the Biblical creation story is literally true is, without any rational doubt, absurd.

[ThNozzleman]

Just stick with calling it silly. I don't expect any deeper comments from you.

Heh...and you're really knockin' them out of the park, philosophically speaking, right?

[ThNozzleman]

It's a bit of apples and oranges.

There is overwhelming evidence that smoking is in fact BAD for you. Whereas there is zero evidence one way or the other for the 'magic of religion' as you put it.

But, there is plenty of scientific evidence that disproves what religion teaches...overwhelmingly. Yet, people keep clinging to it as truth...just like people disregard the truth about cigarette smoking.

[HuntPA]

Please take a geology class.


Only if you presume a flood for which we have no evidence and ignore a rather large body of geological knowledge accumulated over the last few centuries. Wishful thinking doesn't make it so.



While there may be a philosophical argument to suggest that the Bible may contain figurative truths, the notion that the Biblical creation story is literally true is, without any rational doubt, absurd.

I took geology classes in college. How many have you taken? And they were taught from an old earth viewpoint. I was unable to have the professor explain to me why you can not find the "geologic column" in complete order anywhere in the world. I also asked how several trees have been fossilized completely upside down through several strata of sedimetary rock. The rock is perfectly formed around the tree (including the needles as they are mostly evergreen) with no evidence that it was somehow inserted.

I notice that your tone is changing from one of evidence and interpretation to that of "I don't agree, so I am going to call names without factual backing." I was looking forward to a factual conversation, or even a philisophical debate, but not a name calling session where you say that I am believe in sky fairies with no grounding in science.

[DeputyMarshal]

I took geology classes in college. How many have you taken? And they were taught from an old earth viewpoint

So did I. Afterwards I taught them in college. They weren't from an old earth viewpoint but from an objective evidence viewpoint.

I notice that your tone is changing from one of evidence and interpretation to that of "I don't agree, so I am going to call names without factual backing."

I don't waste time on young earthers anymore. I find them too pathetically ignorant to bother with. I could attempt a factual conversation, but I usually get paid to teach science and I find young earthers typically need at least a couple of years of background education before they can debate the subject intelligently. I don't have that kind of time to waste.

Go ahead and believe whatever fairy tales you wish.

[neiowa]

...

Go ahead and belief whatever fairy tales you wish.

That would be "believe" "professor/TA" condescending. I assume of "Rocks for Jocks".

[DeputyMarshal]

That would be "believe" "professor/TA" condescending. I assume of "Rocks for Jocks".

And I assume you've never posted a note with a typo? Aren't you special.

[ChiefKN]

But, there is plenty of scientific evidence that disproves what religion teaches...overwhelmingly. Yet, people keep clinging to it as truth...just like people disregard the truth about cigarette smoking.

Tell me what evidence disproves the existence of god? Also, "what religion teaches" is so vague and all non-encompasing that I wouldn't know where to begin.

But keep it up, you're impressing us all with your stunning commentary.

[HuntPA]

I don't waste time on young earthers anymore. I find them too pathetically ignorant to bother with. I could attempt a factual conversation, but I usually get paid to teach science and I find young earthers typically need at least a couple of years of background education before they can debate the subject intelligently. I don't have that kind of time to waste.

Go ahead and believe whatever fairy tales you wish.

Since you wish to end the discussion with me then, I will sign off on this subject and wish you a good day.

I will add, however, that when adressing someone, calling them "pathetically ignorant" does not evoke feelings of good will. I also implore you not to use such a tone in your classes as it will undoubtedly lead to you losing your position. I know that if I were to take the same tact, that I would no longer be employed the the university that pays me.

[voyager9]

But, there is plenty of scientific evidence that disproves what religion teaches...overwhelmingly. Yet, people keep clinging to it as truth...just like people disregard the truth about cigarette smoking.

Allow me to clarify my statement. Science cannot prove, or disprove the existence of a god. Certainly it can prove or disprove various religious teachings... aka Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism. The later statement better corresponds with your analogy.