Guest guest Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 Hi, You say that if two people are in love and stay in love all their lives...that is good. Well, maybe for them. But not good for a third person who was desparately in love with one of the first two, and spends a life of misery and jealousy because of the other peoples' love. Or who is to say that this love, whilst good, does not prevent one or the other from doing something that might be better? Or finding a 'better' love? You say that when someone stops punching you it is good, because we know punching people is a bad thing to do. Two problems with that. Firstly, when someone stops punching you it is good for you, but might be bad for them, especially if they were enjoying punching you. And secondly, why do you assume punching people is always bad? If I punch someone who is attempting to kill another person and so prevent them, my punching them is good. I think the trouble is not just with whether good is a subjective opinion or objective reality. It is that there are people on this list with (at least) two entirely different mind-sets. One set tries to lead their lives in accordance with what is likely to be true, as shown by science, research, evidence and investigation. The other tries to lead their lives in accordance with the bible. Thus since there is no evidence for 'good' as an external force, or indeed as any kind of force for that matter, the first set do not believe it to exist, but the latter, presumably because of the line 'god is good', do. The first do not believe the concept of good and bad to be anything other than entirely arbitrary, based on what is good for that individual and soceity. The second believe what the bible says is good to be good, and what it says to be bad is bad. Thus since there is no evidence for the existence of god, the first set do not assume one exists because someone once wrote that there is. Thus since there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, the earth being round(ish), grativy to be a force, etc., the first set reckon these theories are probably correct, whilst the latter, because it might contradict what is written in the bible, do not. In the past I have described this a platform problem. We are talking about the same subjects, but from different platforms - one of which being that the bible is more than a piece of creative fiction and god exists, the other platform being one of science. Whilst we might agree a few terms, we can never do more than shout at each other from one platform to the other. And in fact, even these terms are largely misunderstood rather than understood. Take the word 'believe', for example. A scientist and a person of faith mean entirely different things when they say 'I believe'. A scientist takes I believe to mean 'I believe that this is probably true, but recognise I might be wrong'. A person of faith takes I believe to mean 'I believe this to be true, and this belief cannot be altered by any evidence to the contrary'. So that, in the final instance, it is probably pointless to debate such matters as religion, science, faith and the nature of reality. Or rather, it is pointless unless either one enjoys debate for its own sake, or those of a scientifice bent are willing to abandon reason and try a little faith, or those of a religious inclincation are willing to consider their ideas and beliefs in the same way as scientists consider their theories, as ideas to be examined, probed, and most importantly discarded if they do not stand up to close scrutiny. Incidentally, I'd like to add that whilst I stand firmly in the scientific camp, I do not hold that religion is necessary bad, nor wrong. Not necessarily bad, because if what I consider good results from a mental framework of believe, whether this is 'correct' or 'incorrect' is fairly unimportant. And not wrong, because as every loyal post-modernist will tell you, concepts such as wrong and right can only be applied after a criteria. So whilst in terms of 'correct' and 'incorrect' a religion might be wrong, in terms of 'useful' and 'not useful', or in terms of 'achieving what I understand as good' and 'achieving what I understand as bad', a religion can still be right. My ten and only hopefully my only cents. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 23, 2003 Report Share Posted November 23, 2003 - " John Davis " <mcxg46 Sunday, November 23, 2003 2:54 PM A Platform Problem > Hi, > > You say that if two people are in love and stay in love all their > lives...that is good. > > Well, maybe for them. But not good for a third person who was desparately in > love with one of the first two, and spends a life of misery and jealousy > because of the other peoples' love> If a third person enters the scence and convinces one of the couple to go with them..it is more likely to be more painfull for the rejected one ( as he or she have been as the husband and wife) than it would be for the third one to be rejected in the first place...at least then an established relationship stays intacted. If a person who is in love with a person who is in a relationship already.. they will only persue the one they love if they think there is a chance of them being together with them.. as a couple. Other wise they would move on.> .. Or who is to say that this love, whilst > good, does not prevent one or the other from doing something that might be > better? Or finding a 'better' love?> We could be searching all our lives for better loves. In the mean time we might have not given the first one a chance to grow..thus missing out.> > > You say that when someone stops punching you it is good, because we know > punching people is a bad thing to do. Two problems with that. Firstly, when > someone stops punching you it is good for you, but might be bad for them, > especially if they were enjoying punching you.> My original point was..the difference between good leading to more good..... and the kind of good coming from bad. If a person is enjoying punching you..than that person is doing it for a bad/wrong reason in the first place. That can't be coming from 'good' it must be coming from 'bad'.> And secondly, why do you > assume punching people is always bad? If I punch someone who is attempting > to kill another person and so prevent them, my punching them is good.> I think we can agree that punching someone just for the sake of it or because someone feels like it.. is not a good thing. If different senarios are brought into the equation it changes that fact .. If we try to do what is good we will usually find that we do do good and vice versa with bad. Most people I imagine are striving to do 'good' in their own lives without harming others...I believe that has to be (what we have come to believe as being good in all senses of the word. I believe we have to live within the laws of existence/universe that has the nature laws of what is good and bad for us here. You could say water is an bad thing..if you drowned in it. It's not the water thats bad it's the drowning thats bad. > > I think the trouble is not just with whether good is a subjective opinion or > objective reality. It is that there are people on this list with (at least) > two entirely different mind-sets. One set tries to lead their lives in > accordance with what is likely to be true, as shown by science, research, > evidence and investigation. The other tries to lead their lives in > accordance with the bible. > > Thus since there is no evidence for 'good' as an external force, or indeed > as any kind of force for that matter, the first set do not believe it to > exist, but the latter, presumably because of the line 'god is good', do. > The first do not believe the concept of good and bad to be anything other > than entirely arbitrary, based on what is good for that individual and > soceity. The second believe what the bible says is good to be good, and what > it says to be bad is bad.> Would you disagree with what certain books in the bible say to be good and bad...if we applied their hysical actions to our lives? nce there is no evidence for the existence of god, the first set do > not assume one exists because someone once wrote that there is.> I do not say there is a God...I believe there is a God as apposed to just bits of matter or none matter being around forever.> > > Thus since there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, One could argue 'Gods evolution'.> > earth being round(ish), grativy to be a force, etc., the first set reckon > these theories are probably correct, whilst the latter, because it might > contradict what is written in the bible, do not.> A lot of people now believe that the universe had a beginning..the big bang...> > In the past I have described this a platform problem. We are talking about > the same subjects, but from different platforms - one of which being that > the bible is more than a piece of creative fiction and god exists, the other > platform being one of science. Whilst we might agree a few terms, we can > never do more than shout at each other from one platform to the other. And > in fact, even these terms are largely misunderstood rather than understood. > Take the word 'believe', for example. A scientist and a person of faith mean > entirely different things when they say 'I believe'. A scientist takes I > believe to mean 'I believe that this is probably true, but recognise I might > be wrong'. A person of faith takes I believe to mean 'I believe this to be > true, and this belief cannot be altered by any evidence to the contrary'.> I would keep an open mind about it.. people dismiss the existence of a God without having any proof.> > So that, in the final instance, it is probably pointless to debate such > matters as religion, science, faith and the nature of reality. Or rather, it > is pointless unless either one enjoys debate for its own sake, or those of a > scientifice bent are willing to abandon reason and try a little faith, or > those of a religious inclincation are willing to consider their ideas and > beliefs in the same way as scientists consider their theories, as ideas to > be examined, probed, and most importantly discarded if they do not stand up > to close scrutiny.> Lets remember Newton was a very religious and scientific person and Einstein did not disregard the notion of a God. I would of thought by the very nature of the scientific mind a God would not be disregarded without proof.> k of believe, whether this is 'correct' or 'incorrect' is fairly > unimportant. And not wrong, because as every loyal post-modernist will tell > you, concepts such as wrong and right can only be applied after a criteria. > So whilst in terms of 'correct' and 'incorrect' a religion might be wrong, > in terms of 'useful' and 'not useful', or in terms of 'achieving what I > understand as good' and 'achieving what I understand as bad', a religion can > still be right.> >Science the great searcher..it seeks and no doubt it will find. My unexpert opinions. com/l.asp?cid=5511 > http://us.click./mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/PVjolB/TM > ---~-> > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 > >I would keep an open mind about it.. people dismiss the existence of a God >without having any proof. > > Most people dismiss the existence of the Easter Bumny, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, Elvis still being alive and a million other bits and pieces of folklore and mythology without any proof. So what's your point ? Do you have an open mind on all these as well ? Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Monday, November 24, 2003 2:42 AM Re: A Platform Problem > > > >I would keep an open mind about it.. people dismiss the existence of a God > >without having any proof. > > > > > > Most people dismiss the existence of the Easter Bumny, Santa Claus, > the Loch Ness Monster, Elvis still being alive and a million other > bits and pieces of folklore and mythology without any proof. So > what's your point ? Do you have an open mind on all these as well ?> No not really. But I will not dismiss the idea that there is a greater intelligence behind this existence than our own..or that when we die that is the end of us. Simon > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 > > >> Most people dismiss the existence of the Easter Bumny, Santa Claus, >> the Loch Ness Monster, Elvis still being alive and a million other >> bits and pieces of folklore and mythology without any proof. So >> what's your point ? Do you have an open mind on all these as well ?> > >No not really. > >But I will not dismiss the idea that there is a greater intelligence behind >this existence than our own..or that when we die that is the end of us. > So you just believe what you want to believe ? In which case why do you concern yourself with proof - it doesn't seem as though this would matter to you, since you're choosing to adopt irrational beliefs without any evidence ? Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Monday, November 24, 2003 2:55 PM Re: A Platform Problem > > > > >> Most people dismiss the existence of the Easter Bumny, Santa Claus, > >> the Loch Ness Monster, Elvis still being alive and a million other > >> bits and pieces of folklore and mythology without any proof. So > >> what's your point ? Do you have an open mind on all these as well ?> > > > > I don't believe in mythology... I do try to keep an open mind regards the universe..the hows and whys it exists. > > > >But I will not dismiss the idea that there is a greater intelligence behind > >this existence than our own..or that when we die that is the end of us. > > > > So you just believe what you want to believe ? In which case why do > you concern yourself with proof - it doesn't seem as though this > would matter to you, since you're choosing to adopt irrational > beliefs without any evidence ?> I'm 100% for proof...but until something is proved or disproved..I will choose my beliefs. A question for you....How long does it take for rock to form? Simon > > > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 not as long as it takes to be crushed.... simon [simonpjones] A question for you....How long does it take for rock to form?Simon ** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 > >A question for you....How long does it take for rock to form? > How long is a piece of string ? Form from what ? Gas ? Liquid ? In what situation ? If you're talking about the formation of rock in the earth's crust due to cooling, a large part of the earth's core is still molten. What's your point ? Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Monday, November 24, 2003 8:32 PM Re: A Platform Problem > > > >A question for you....How long does it take for rock to form? > > > > How long is a piece of string ?> As long as the measurement you apply to it..There again how long is a measurement.> > > Form from what ? Gas ? Liquid ? In what situation ? > > If you're talking about the formation of rock in the earth's crust > due to cooling, a large part of the earth's core is still molten. > > What's your point ?> Point being.. some scientists mention millions and billion of years old when refering to certain events in past life. The words 'probably' or 'could be' or 'Maybe' etc. seem to have been forgotten.( one examlple) As hard solid rock has been proven to form in a matter of a few years...and as there are rocks being moved around in space.. It does seem some scientist are making outragous claims when refering to time scales concerning evolution..as if they have the 100% proof. Both scientists and religious people are at fault in claiming to know certain things. Simon > > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 24, 2003 Report Share Posted November 24, 2003 > >Point being.. some scientists mention millions and billion of years old when >refering to certain events in past life. >The words 'probably' or 'could be' or 'Maybe' etc. seem to have been >forgotten.( one examlple) As hard solid rock has been proven to form in a >matter of a few years...and as there are rocks being moved around in space.. >It does seem some scientist are making outragous claims when refering to >time scales concerning evolution..as if they have the 100% proof. >Both scientists and religious people are at fault in claiming to know >certain things. > Do you understand what carbon dating is ? Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 this is a very Christian fundamentalist argument... an executive of Ford Motors is quoted as speaking to Greenpeace activist Jeremy Leggett ...(tho did this actually happen?) : "The Earth is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists." mostly tho i would attribute this kind of argument to a raving lunatic ... (like Bush and those other born again fundamentalist -ex-alcoholics ... etc... saved by their own delusions from their own delusions ... ) ... simon [simonpjones] Point being.. some scientists mention millions and billion of years old whenrefering to certain events in past life.The words 'probably' or 'could be' or 'Maybe' etc. seem to have beenforgotten.( one examlple) As hard solid rock has been proven to form in amatter of a few years...and as there are rocks being moved around in space..It does seem some scientist are making outragous claims when refering totime scales concerning evolution..as if they have the 100% proof.Both scientists and religious people are at fault in claiming to knowcertain things. ** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 isn't that when one carbon atom joins up with another carbon atom and they go out together? Paul Russell [prussell] Do you understand what carbon dating is ?Paul ** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 , " simon " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > I'm 100% for proof...but until something is proved or disproved..I will > choose my beliefs. But what is proof? And when would you have enough proof? Siofra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 , " Oliver Slay " <oliver@l...> wrote: > this is a very Christian fundamentalist argument... an executive of > Ford Motors is quoted as speaking to Greenpeace activist Jeremy Leggett > ...(tho did this actually happen?) : " The Earth is just 10,000, not 4.5 > billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists. " Unfortunately, there are folks who are trying to legislate for Creation Theory to be taught in US schools as an equal (or " better " ) theory to Evolution.... Intelligent Designer Theory (agnostic name for the same thing as creationism...) is based on a misinterpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.... They also discount fossil records because these don't show the sorts of mixed animals they want to see so they can still say evolution didn't happen.... (my fav source for this is Dave Gorman's Googlewhack Adventure where he met a leading Californian Creationist but these people also turn up on Radio 4 news from time to time). IDT folks think fossils should look like mer-cows and mixed pantomime animals... Those who do accept the fossil records believe that God planted them there as part of creation. Yeah, God wanted to trick us into thinking the world is 42 billion years old because he loves us??? > mostly tho i would attribute this kind of argument to a raving lunatic I do too - the worst sorts of raving lunatics - rich, powerful, beautiful (thanks to their surgeons and dentists) and with lots of PR and too much air-time. Creationism is all PR and no substance. Siofra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 >isn't that when one carbon atom joins up with another carbon atom >and they go out together? > Yes, and sometimes this can lead to a bond which lasts half a lifetime. Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Monday, November 24, 2003 10:06 PM Re: A Platform Problem > > > >Point being.. some scientists mention millions and billion of years old when > >refering to certain events in past life. > >The words 'probably' or 'could be' or 'Maybe' etc. seem to have been > >forgotten.( one examlple) As hard solid rock has been proven to form in a > >matter of a few years...and as there are rocks being moved around in space.. > >It does seem some scientist are making outragous claims when refering to > >time scales concerning evolution..as if they have the 100% proof. > >Both scientists and religious people are at fault in claiming to know > >certain things. > > > > Do you understand what carbon dating is ? > >Sorry not convined..when talking about millions and billions of years. > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 That million and billion yrs dating..very suspect indeed.---- Original Message ----- Oliver Slay Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:31 AM RE: A Platform Problem this is a very Christian fundamentalist argument... an executive of Ford Motors is quoted as speaking to Greenpeace activist Jeremy Leggett ...(tho did this actually happen?) : "The Earth is just 10,000, not 4.5 billion years old, the age widely accepted by scientists." mostly tho i would attribute this kind of argument to a raving lunatic ... (like Bush and those other born again fundamentalist -ex-alcoholics ... etc... saved by their own delusions from their own delusions ... ) ... simon [simonpjones] Point being.. some scientists mention millions and billion of years old whenrefering to certain events in past life.The words 'probably' or 'could be' or 'Maybe' etc. seem to have beenforgotten.( one examlple) As hard solid rock has been proven to form in amatter of a few years...and as there are rocks being moved around in space..It does seem some scientist are making outragous claims when refering totime scales concerning evolution..as if they have the 100% proof.Both scientists and religious people are at fault in claiming to knowcertain things.**~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 - " wee_siofra " <c.macneill Tuesday, November 25, 2003 11:25 AM Re: A Platform Problem > , " simon " <simonpjones@o...> wrote: > > > I'm 100% for proof...but until something is proved or disproved..I > will > > choose my beliefs. > > But what is proof? And when would you have enough proof? > > Evidents of truth or what exists through touch,taste , seeing ,hearing and smell..I suppose. > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2003 Report Share Posted November 25, 2003 > > >> Do you understand what carbon dating is ? >> > >Sorry not convined..when talking about millions and billions of years. > On what basis are you " not convinced " ? If you feel that there are some shortcomings in the method then perhaps you'd like to point out what they are ? Anyway, the Valley Vegan who now seems to be the moderator of Vegan UK has requested that disagreements not be aired here - it seems that we are only allowed to agree with each other and " be nice " , so if you want to explain why carbon dating is " not convincing " then please move it to Vegans Uncensored. Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 sounds like the beginning of science... only 1000 years behind the rest of us ... simon [simonpjones] Evidents of truth or what exists through touch,taste , seeing ,hearing andsmell..I suppose. ** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 >sounds like the beginning of science... only 1000 years behind the >rest of us ... > It doesn't say much for the quality of science education in schools that so many adults hold irrational religious and/or " new age " beliefs and seem unable to grasp the basics of scientific enquiry. Paul -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 - " Paul Russell " <prussell Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:07 PM Re: A Platform Problem > > > > >> Do you understand what carbon dating is ? > >> > > >Sorry not convined..when talking about millions and billions of years. > > > > On what basis are you " not convinced " ? If you feel that there are > some shortcomings in the method then perhaps you'd like to point out > what they are ? > > Anyway, the Valley Vegan who now seems to be the moderator of Vegan > UK has requested that disagreements not be aired here - it seems that > we are only allowed to agree with each other and " be nice " , so if you > want to explain why carbon dating is " not convincing " then please > move it to Vegans Uncensored. > > Paul > > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 Here is some reasonable skepticism. I thought the story about the scientist who was given a piece live coral reef and dating it 14,000 years a little worrying for a start. --- Original Message ----- " Paul Russell " <prussell Tuesday, November 25, 2003 10:07 PM Re: A Platform Problem > > > > >> Do you understand what carbon dating is ? > >> > > >Sorry not convined..when talking about millions and billions of years. > > > > On what basis are you " not convinced " ? If you feel that there are > some shortcomings in the method then perhaps you'd like to point out > what they are ? > > Anyway, the Valley Vegan who now seems to be the moderator of Vegan > UK has requested that disagreements not be aired here - it seems that > we are only allowed to agree with each other and " be nice " , so if you > want to explain why carbon dating is " not convincing " then please > move it to Vegans Uncensored. > > Paul > > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 if you take those senses away there is no science. - Oliver Slay Wednesday, November 26, 2003 10:48 AM RE: Re: A Platform Problem sounds like the beginning of science... only 1000 years behind the rest of us ... simon [simonpjones] Evidents of truth or what exists through touch,taste , seeing ,hearing andsmell..I suppose.**~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, there may be another side to the story you have not heard.---------------------------Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline>Un: send a blank message to - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2003 Report Share Posted November 26, 2003 What do you think about the scientist who dated a live coral as 14,000 years old? It doesn't say much for science and I'm all for science. - " Paul Russell " <prussell Wednesday, November 26, 2003 4:13 PM RE: Re: A Platform Problem > >sounds like the beginning of science... only 1000 years behind the > >rest of us ... > > > > It doesn't say much for the quality of science education in schools > that so many adults hold irrational religious and/or " new age " > beliefs and seem unable to grasp the basics of scientific enquiry. > > Paul > > -- > > > ~~ info ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Please remember that the above is only the opinion of the author, > there may be another side to the story you have not heard. > --------------------------- > Was this message Off Topic? Did you know? Was it snipped? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Guidelines: visit <site temporarily offline> > Un: send a blank message to - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.