Posted on 08/03/2006 12:22:06 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
No offer.
I repeat: There is a lot of information available out there. You can to seek it out and study it.
I think that means that some of us are overstating their "knowledge" by about 3 sigmas.
And it ain't me.
Inferiority complex? People are treating you quite kindly. Why are you answering them with such sarcasm?
So can you. But perhaps a better idea would be to step away from the evo threads once in a while and engage your fellow humans face to face. You might not get any useful knowledge but you'll enjoy the company.
What is with you and this "gifted" thing? The question is "do you understand science fundamentals?"
If so, great. If not, then we recommend you learn.
You asked the question. Why get huffy about a straightforward answer?
Just for the record: Are you a Creationist?
Much of Genesis does not have any conflict with what science has *discovered* about the universe.
There's the *beginning* part which science tried for a long time to deny until Einstein and Hubble proved otherwise.
The earth being formless and void (solar nebula theory) and honestly I can't think of a more succinct way of describing the earth at that stage in fewer words.
Water is separated from land - the elements had to separate out and water from land.
Creation of light - light takes time to travel and the sun and stars would not give light until they ignited.
How could you explain how people who had no conceivable way of knowing any of that stuff could get so much right in so few verses?
The big issue with the evolution/creation debate seems to be the time frame. Put that aside and the Bible has much more credibility than some would like to give it credit for.
There are also odd comments about the natural world scattered throughout the Bible besides the creation account that also display knowledge that was unknowable to them at that time. How can that be explained away? Lucky guesses? That many of them?
Inferior to you? Very funny.
Not necessarily.
Christians (and Jews, for we all agree on this matter) say that it came into being as a result of a Creator, who exists outside of the universe, and is eternal.
That's nice. And your scientific evidence for this eternal Creator that exists completely outside of the Universe is . . . ?
Even scientists agree that the universe is not, and cannot be, eternal.
That's because they have this thing called evidence.
Oh, they've tried--Oh! How they've tried!-- to make it an eternal universe!
Actually, those who do are considered to be crackpots.
Debating over the definition of *universe* still doesn't answer the question of whether or not it could have created itself. It's just avoiding the issue. Nor is *Why not?* any kind of respectable scientific answer.
Wait, so now we have *science fundamentalists*? I thought fundamentalism was bad.
Now one for you. What are your qualifications for discussing science? Not that one should need any on a political website but hey let's be open here, we're among fellow conservatives.
Along with my blue collar I managed to get a BS in Electronic Engineering thanks to the GI bill and some hard work. Lots of Boolean Algebra and Logic btw.
Hey, I was just trying to figure out why you are being so sarcastic. What is bugging you so?
Why do you feel the need to list your accomplishments and those of your family?
I have not been disrespectful of you. Why do you feel you can be so of others?
I could list my accomplishments (substantial, but quite different than yours) in a "whose is bigger" contest, but what would be the point?
If you have the knowledge, great. If not, then get it. Your CV clearly indicates the ability to do so with ease.
You are always all over the map, but that was pretty funny ;)
Don't bother arguing with Fester Chugabrew: he actually concluded that evolution must be false, and his reasoning was that he was too stupid to understand it.
When it comes to evolution, that is putting it very mildly. Since it falls under the category of "a field of dreams".
Yup, a strong grip with smooth tempo, the right shaft, the proper angle of launch to maximise distance and boom, off she goes.
I also understand science fundamentalists.....
Sometimes.
Just so I know. Since your tone is pretty typical of Creationists on most of these threads. I'll toss it on the stack as an example of how Christians show love for their fellow man.
Now one for you. What are your qualifications for discussing science? Not that one should need any on a political website but hey let's be open here, we're among fellow conservatives.
Asked and answered. Feel free to puruse the thread.
Along with my blue collar I managed to get a BS in Electronic Engineering thanks to the GI bill and some hard work. Lots of Boolean Algebra and Logic btw.
Good. EE depends on science but is not a scientific field.
But what if someone came to you and wanted to discuss 3VL vs 2VL and didn't even understand a basic XOR? Would you think they are qualified to discuss that subject?
I spend a quite a bit of time in the wilderness with some Indian friends. I enjoy the company and learn a lot. There are usually some real old timers there. You can learn a lot by listening to real elders around a campfire, late at night, miles from the nearest road.
My primary reason for being on the crevo threads is to combat the anti-science folks. I try to keep my posts to scientific topics, and avoid religion. Unfortunately, some folks mistake belief and religion for scientific facts, and that does nobody any good.
Comprende?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.