[Scientist]

Make that my xgirlfriend. That was the last straw. When I met her she claimed to be a science geek like me. She's majoring in a biological field (wildlife management), she loves adventuring in the outdoors and she is extremely intelligent. When I first met her she seemed nearly perfect...

But strangely we didn't agree on many scientific issues. For example, she thinks it is ridiculous that one of her classmates considers humans an invasive species. Hmmm, ridiculous eh?

She also seemed to have an extreme dislike for philosophical thought, especially existentialism...oh well, I thought I could live with that, although it seemed strange that a scientist wouldn't be interested in such important topics (to science geeks) as the philosophy of scientific thinking.

Still, it seemed like everytime we'd get into a scientific discussion she'd get a little angry or frustrated at some point....
A few weeks ago I found out why. She admitted that she doesn't believe in evolution. Ok. Umm, well I didn't expect that...

That really changed things for me. She went from being someone I felt could really relate to me (even if she didn't agree) into someone I had to be very careful not to offend. Then she told me that in 'her world' the earth is only 4000 years old. She tried to quote scientific evidence to prove this... Eck. Well, that was fun while it lasted. I broke up with her.

I think it is sick that someone would hide something like that for so long from someone they cared about.

I feel used.

[ambush]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Make that my xgirlfriend. That was the last straw. When I met her she claimed to be a science geek like me. She's majoring in a biological field (wildlife management), she loves adventuring in the outdoors and she is extremely intelligent. When I first met her she seemed nearly perfect...

But strangely we didn't agree on many scientific issues. For example, she thinks it is ridiculous that one of her classmates considers humans an invasive species. Hmmm, ridiculous eh?

She also seemed to have an extreme dislike for philosophical thought, especially existentialism...oh well, I thought I could live with that, although it seemed strange that a scientist wouldn't be interested in such important topics (to science geeks) as the philosophy of scientific thinking.

Still, it seemed like everytime we'd get into a scientific discussion she'd get a little angry or frustrated at some point....
A few weeks ago I found out why. She admitted that she doesn't believe in evolution. Ok. Umm, well I didn't expect that...

That really changed things for me. She went from being someone I felt could really relate to me (even if she didn't agree) into someone I had to be very careful not to offend. Then she told me that in 'her world' the earth is only 4000 years old. She tried to quote scientific evidence to prove this... Eck. Well, that was fun while it lasted. I broke up with her.

I think it is sick that someone would hide something like that for so long from someone they cared about.

I feel used.

beware of people believing in creationism.

[voyageur]

Don't feel too bad about being taken for a ride. If she's managed to get through a biology-related major and still dismiss one of the fundamental tenets of the subject, she's got to be very practiced at deception, both of herself and her professors.

Don't get upset over it. Be happy - you just dodged a bullet.

[wang_himself]

Christian_Science = oxymoron;
Christian_Science != science;

while(sanity==true)
{
earth_age > 4000;
evolution = true;
religion = false;
wang = true;
}

[deekay1]

Then she told me that in 'her world' the earth is only 4000 years old. She tried to quote scientific evidence to prove this...

:: i can feel the flames comin' on right now ::

muahahahahahaha

btw, just out of curiosity, how was she in bed? or did that not matter?

[fireside]

damn bible freaks.

[cal4ever]

Sorry to hear about the break-up...I think.

Unfortunately, your ex-gf is not alone. My roommate in my first year of college believed in creationism as well. She even had a 100 page book to disprove evolution! 100 pages!!! Not to insult anyone who does believe in creationism, but if one were to try and disprove EVOLUTION (of all things), I would assume it would take more than 100 pages to do so!

Oh well...

[kmkkid]

Breaking up over something so stupid?

Give me a break.



Chris

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by kmkkid:
Breaking up over something so stupid?

Give me a break.

Something like that would be a big deal for me. I mean, it's a pretty major philisophical difference. And hard to overlook if you're both scientists.

[fireside]

what the hell are you talking about canadian boy? there was obviously a huge clash in beliefs. he's a scientist. shes a christian scientist. they aren't the same. they have totally opposite beliefs.

[ebuddy]

The funny thing is, I'm sure the evidence she presented for her take was at least as compelling, if not more compelling than the evidence you may have given for evolution. Observational science is all over the Bible. The first scientists (knowing this is a creation) knew that all things are calculated. That is to say, they were deliberate and predictable. They then went about trying to answer these questions. Newton, etc... were among the first and most influential Christian Scrientists and believed whole-heartedly in a Divine Creator. Don't simply cast these folks off as whackos. I'm sorry to hear honest debate couldn't be had between you two and that she was easily offended.

I guess it depends upon which you believe. (i.e. Micro vs Macro or both in harmony) Ultimitely, matter cannot break down and increase in complexity. Nowhere is this true. Nor is it true in the origination of mankind. I suppose you can deny it, but you are then denying the very craft of science itself. Observation.

Dating methods are theories at best and more holes have been found in them than swiss cheese. These are all taught to you as fact from the time you are old enough to read yet nowhere do you see an opposing argument. Arguments like archeologists findings of fossilzed remains of dinosaurs with spears in their sides or rocks dated to be billions of years old except for the small man-made hammer in the center, or the fact that remains cannot be fossilized by pressure alone, but requires full submersion in water. (i.e. flood) The Bible often refers to large animals; elephants, giraffes, and Behomoths. (clearly separated as terrible beasts in some cases and unique from the other large animals.) I mean, let's cut through it here, this girl was clearly a Christian. I have a hunch science wasn't the only bone of contention between the two of you.

The fact is; as a Christian in a secular school (unless you want to be a complete pain in the ass) has to "suck it up". It is very easy for someone to believe one thing and still get an "A" in another. Doesn't mean that they have to believe it as true. Was your class open to debate regarding your Professor's instruction? I doubt it.

In short, I'm sorry you dumped her. You could've learned a lot. Although, I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000. If however, you don't believe man here on earth to be God's greatest and most precious creation, it would be easy to separate you from your Creator by several billion years.

Again; (and I can't be clear enough) There is compelling evidence out there that will change the entire way of how you view things. It requires an open mind and a lot of research. there are only three types of people who come to Christ; Those that develop carreers trying to refute the truth and finally give up, those who believed in the first place and got to studying, and lastly those that believed all along because they were told to and live luke-warm lives. Most of us fall in the latter. We believe the Bible and it's words are true when it suits us and that there is no great big guy in the sky making all things come together for good. Although we witness evil each day we do not believe true evil exists. We live comfy, complacent lives where nothing is deeper than our back yards. Personally, I'm really glad the earth isn't as old as most suggest because at the current rate of earth's separation from the sun, we would not be here to enjoy a warm day. This is the time of year to be thankful for sure!

Oh, and in reply to someone's statement that it should take more than 100 pages to refute evolution, you obviously don't have kids. The truth generally requires 1/8th the fluff of BS.

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Scientist:

I think it is sick that someone would hide something like that for so long from someone they cared about.

I feel used.

Compassionate Conservatives need sex too. bwahaha

[Kilbey]

Yet another religious based thread started by the anti-religious crowd.

Didn't we put this to rest a few weeks back?

It's too bad your relationship had to end. My wife and I disagree on many topics, some of them fundamental. But we love each other and work at the relationship.

If two people agree on everything, what is the sense in having a relationship with someone who is basically you?

[wang_himself]

Originally posted by fireside:
christian scientist

Nice oxymoron

[deekay1]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
as it's more likely a little older than 6000.

errm, NO!

[wang_himself]

We at least being broken up is better than being in the friend zone:

[RooneyX]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Yet another religious based thread started by the anti-religious crowd.

Didn't we put this to rest a few weeks back?

It's too bad your relationship had to end. My wife and I disagree on many topics, some of them fundamental. But we love each other and work at the relationship.

If two people agree on everything, what is the sense in having a relationship with someone who is basically you?

So your kids won't be confused or creationists.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by RooneyX:
So your kids won't be confused or creationists.

Teach them both. Let them decide. Or are you of the brainwashing camp?

[effgee]

Scientist,
sorry to hear about your break-up - but a big to you for sticking to your principles - I would've done the same thing.

(...) I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000 (...)

ebuddy,
I don't want to hijack the thread - a link and/or source that proves that carbon-dating is bogus would be much appreciated.

[itai195]

ebuddy: perhaps you can enlighten us, because I fail to see any connection between the thoughts you posted and a compelling refutation of evolution...

I'm with Scientist, it's difficult to overcome such fundamental differences of opinion in a relationship.

[Kilbey]

Here's a questions for those who believe it is impossible to "overcome such fundamental differences of opinion in a relationship".:

Are any of you married, or currently in a long-term relationship?

[kmkkid]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Here's a questions for those who believe it is impossible to "overcome such fundamental differences of opinion in a relationship".:

Are any of you married, or currently in a long-term relationship?

Love conquers all.



Chris

[effgee]

Kilbey wrote:

Are any of you married, or currently in a long-term relationship?

uhm, yeah - married, nearly a decade and still going stronger than ever. Love her to death.

What's your point?

[Steve]

Originally posted by effgee:
ebuddy,
I don't want to hijack the thread - a link and/or source that proves that carbon-dating is bogus would be much appreciated.

http://www.contenderministries.org/e...n/carbon14.php

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted�._ No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.�

http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/...eek991111.html

There are some problems with carbon dating. One is that it can measure the age of objects only back to the equivalent of 10 carbon-14 half-lives, or about 60,000 years. Beyond that, there isn�t enough carbon-14 remaining to measure accurately. In addition, carbon-14 dating doesn�t work for fossils, in which all of the organic matter has been replaced by minerals.

It Goes Only So Far
Another problem for researchers is that the percentage of carbon-14 in the atmosphere actually varies over time. The burning of fossil fuels this century has increased the amount of carbon-14, for example. During periods of high sunspot activity, Earth is bombarded by higher levels of cosmic rays, which increases the percentage carbon-14.
____ To account for these variations, researchers have turned to trees to calibrate their measurements. By measuring the percentage of carbon-14 in each ring of very old trees, scientists have been able to come up with a pretty good picture of the carbon-14 concentration in the atmosphere going back about 11,000 years.

Just the first couple links I found Googling. There are more if you feel so inclined.

Anyways, I don't think carbon-dating is accurate enough to tell the age of the earth, because of the flaws that it inherently contains.

[ebuddy]

Effgee, are you serious? You want evidence that carbon-dating is flawed? You sound like you've never heard of this before. With all due respect my friend this is like a known-fact nowadays even among those who use it for simple-dating. That is, after 3000 years it becomes flawed. It depends entirely on atmospheric pressure being constant when it's been anything, but. Also, the samples have to use varied methodology depending on their environment. This poses yet another accuracy problem. You can't use one calculation, you have to use several and the science is ever-changing. If you aren't familiar with where I'm headed on this, your belief need not be enabled by me. Keep in mind BTW it is still referred to as "The Theory of Evolution". Don't take it from me. When your dog dies, have the bones carbon-dated.

for the sake of fun and nothing more;

you could be wrong

keep reading

and one more

Now, you're going to say; "but these are all Creationist sites". Don't bother reading then. All of what you and I have learned growing up was fed to us as fact by Evolutionists. There are opposing views you do not get the benefit of knowing. Now you have them.

[Tulkas]

Here we go again.

Evolutionists think they're right. Ironic when the amount of what they KNOW (not just guess) is pathetically small. None of its been proven.

How old the earth is is unimportant. If it counts neither side can decide.

I get the feeling this issue will never go away. Scientists think they're right. All I know is this arrogant attitude is not right and its not going anywhere. You may be right, but atleast we're civil.

I would kindly ass that this has nothing to do with evolution. Its about a guy who feels wronged because his gf has different beliefs than him. Throwing away a relationship like that is just stupid, I would never do that. Maybe I'm just an idealist but I think if you HAVE to be right you have a problem.

As for myself, evolution has been wrong many times. Its been revised so much it hurts. The fact remains both sides have evidence but no proof. This is not what I call scientific fact.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Steve:
http://www.contenderministries.org/e...n/carbon14.php



http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/...eek991111.html



Just the first couple links I found Googling. There are more if you feel so inclined.

Anyways, I don't think carbon-dating is accurate enough to tell the age of the earth, because of the flaws that it inherently contains.

Carbon dating is not nearly accurate enough to reveal the age of the earth but other methods are.

http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/ge...o102/radio.htm

Carbon-14 dating is not used for judging the age of the earth. I'm no geologist, but I know the dating methods are calibrated, verified and tested against eachother for accuracy. I can't testify to the extent of the accuracy but I have heard it is rather good.

Carbon 14 dating has proven to be quite accurate (within its limits) using corroborating evidences from other dating methods including, in some cases, information from tree rings, history books, etc.

[ebuddy]

buddy: perhaps you can enlighten us, because I fail to see any connection between the thoughts you posted and a compelling refutation of evolution...

I guess I could be a jerk and ask you to defend the inherant flaws of carbon-dating, but that would be just baiting you. I already know what they are and they are simply to inconsistent for me to accept as stable science. I submit to you Itai that you are not to be enlightened. You are already ominiscient in your ideal and have no need for more information. There is nothing I could say to you that would refute what you believe. Hence, it is a belief in a theory afterall. I guess we all have religion to explain things.

In regards to what's his face breaking up with what's her face...that wasn't the intent of the thread. I addressed the intent of the thread. I told him I was sorry the two couldn't work it out. He could've learned something. You disagree no doubt.

[Logic]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
rocks dated to be billions of years old except for the small man-made hammer in the center,

Ever thought that perhaps the rock is a billion(or million) years old, then later in history(tens of thousand years ago) humanoids came up with the idea that they would make a hammer out of the billion years old rock? It is highly unlikely that they would take fresh floating lava and make a hammer out of it.

Although, I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000.

Could you back that up in anyway? Iceland(which is a very new land) is older than 6000 years. Infact the oldest rocks on Iceland are 16 mill years old. If not, please back that statement up.

Again; (and I can't be clear enough) There is compelling evidence out there that will change the entire way of how you view things. It requires an open mind and a lot of research.

Could you show just one of those "compelling evidence"? Just one. And there is one other thing wrong with that sentance. One of the main rules in science is IIRC called in english, reduction. It has been proven, again and again, that most of the time the easiest "answer" is the most correct answer. You can find some facts that back up anything if you look hard enough, but that doesn't make it correct. I could "prove" to you that our solar system is just an atom in another "world", but we all "know" that isn't true.

Personally, I'm really glad the earth isn't as old as most suggest because at the current rate of earth's separation from the sun, we would not be here to enjoy a warm day. This is the time of year to be thankful for sure!

Some info on that comment please from a respectable source. And after a comment like that I have to ask you how much you know about the physics of planetary orbitals. Just asking.

I find it very disturbing that one of the biggest religions in the world has such a conservative stance on science still today. It is IMO working against God's greatest gift to man, that is the free mind and curiosity. This is one of the reasons I have chosen another religion(or it chose me), because that religion demands that the human seeks knowledge, instead of hindering it.

Oh, and to the original poster:

You could have used that difference in opinion to debate with the girl you like, and mentally stimulate each other. Dumping her because she is religious seems pretty shallow to me. But that is of course IMHO


ps. to Kilbey.

Disclaimer: I've been awake for 27 hours, but I'm going to check out if that post of mine makes any sense

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Effgee, are you serious? You want evidence that carbon-dating is flawed? You sound like you've never heard of this before.
....
Keep in mind BTW it is still referred to as "The Theory of Evolution". Don't take it from me. When your dog dies, have the bones carbon-dated.

PEOPLE! Carbon-14 is used to date the age of organic materials, like from anthropoligcal digs. It IS NOT USED for long-range measurements estimating the age of the earth!

That said, you say that carbon-dating is flawed? Do you know the definitions of precision and accuracy? You say that evolution is "just a theory"? Do you have any idea what a scientific theory is? I'll give you a hint - scientists use the word theory in a much different way than it's used on the streets.

The level of people's ignorance is down right frightening. As people continue to bury their head in the sand about evolution, real problems that should be discussed are neglected.

[RooneyX]

'Although, I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000.'

Shut up, Osama. They'll find you!

[ebuddy]

Scientist, I understand your belief, but there are opposing views to radiometric dating as well;

this for example, in black and white.

yet another one

The fact is, there is no winner or loser in this argument, except the one who refuses to research the other. I've learned about the origination of man by Evolutionists. Most of us have unfortunately. I was interested in disproving Creationism, but found simply too many holes in conventional wisdom. In honesty to myself, researched the other and came to a conclusion.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Although, I'm not sure where she gets 4000 years as it's more likely a little older than 6000.

Let's say 5000 and call it even.

An open mind is good, a gullible one is not.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
Here we go again.

Evolutionists think they're right. Ironic when the amount of what they KNOW (not just guess) is pathetically small. None of its been proven.

How old the earth is is unimportant. If it counts neither side can decide.

I get the feeling this issue will never go away. Scientists think they're right. All I know is this arrogant attitude is not right and its not going anywhere. You may be right, but atleast we're civil.

I would kindly ass that this has nothing to do with evolution. Its about a guy who feels wronged because his gf has different beliefs than him. Throwing away a relationship like that is just stupid, I would never do that. Maybe I'm just an idealist but I think if you HAVE to be right you have a problem.

As for myself, evolution has been wrong many times. Its been revised so much it hurts. The fact remains both sides have evidence but no proof. This is not what I call scientific fact.

I greatly appreciate the support and understanding from everyone who has provided it.

I broke up with the girl because she lied (a lie of omission) to me about who she was. I overlooked a lot of her flaws (in answer to deekay's question) because I thought she was someone who could understand me and someone I could learn from.

There was never anything there to begin with, I just thought there was.

----

Scientists believe in evolution because it is the best explaintion we have for understanding the origins and dynamics of life. You have no idea how many times I have heard predictions come true that were based on this theory. I love debating the details about this stuff.

Over time I learned that she had no interest in learning the truth. The only facts she wanted to hear were the ones that corroborated her own world view. She even admitted that her parents raised her to believe blindly in god and government, etc.

----

Basically, I don't think I am being picky at all. I passed over a lot of good potential opportunities when I was with her. She wasted my time and I'm not at all happy about it.

[effgee]

Jeebus guys,

show me where I said that carbon-dating was exact and/or where I said any of you "creationists" are wrong.

Yes, carbon-dating is not accurate enough to determine the how old mother earth is - I never even implied that the opposite might be true. It is however true that carbon-dating is exact well beyond 3000 years.

And to all you guys reacting like I kicked you in the nads when I posted a simple, value-free one-line question:

Thanks for (once again) proving my point - never argue with fundamentalists.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Tulkas:
As for myself, evolution has been wrong many times. Its been revised so much it hurts.

That's what makes scientific method useful - it allows us to adapt to new information. Religious doctrine, less so.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Logic:
Oh, and to the original poster:

You could have used that difference in opinion to debate with the girl you like, and mentally stimulate each other. Dumping her because she is religious seems pretty shallow to me. But that is of course IMHO[/i]

Oh, I tried. She did not enjoy discussing the matter.

I surround myself with people who are very different from me. She wasn't different (from most other people) or oparticularly special and that was my problem.

(She was freaking smart though. Wow. And she could write like no other.)

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by effgee:
Kilbey wrote:
uhm, yeah - married, nearly a decade and still going stronger than ever. Love her to death.

What's your point?

You didn't understand what I was getting at?

And there are no "fundamental differences of opinion" in your relationship? I am not just talking about evolution vs. creationism here. I find that heard to believe.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Basically, I don't think I am being picky at all. I passed over a lot of good potential opportunities when I was with her. She wasted my time and I'm not at all happy about it.

You probably did the right thing. It's one thing to have differences of opinion, another to have fundamentally different values. That doesn't make her wrong, it's just reality.

[ebuddy]

I agree with you Riverfreak, though it's quite possible your head is also buried under the riverbed. The difference in precision and accuracy is quite thin. Precision is repetitious consistency using a varied array of methodology. You may disagree with that assessment, but then your science may not be precise. Accuracy is hit and miss and usually consists of a +/- factor of umpteen thousand years. I'm not sold on either. Methodology requires change contingent upon environment of sample.

I also don't remember saying that carbon-dating was used in determining the overall age of the earth nor dinosaurs though carbon-dating is used in many cases as a "test/control" for specimens as a catalyst in determining precision.

[Captain Obvious]

That's cool. I mean if she believed in something so fundamentally stupid and impossible I would do the same. I mean, like if I was dating this totally hot girl who thought reparations were a feasible and practical idea I would drop her like a stone. That's almost as bad a bible-toters.

[riverfreak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
That's what makes scientific method useful - it allows us to adapt to new information. Religious doctrine, less so.

Well said, zigzag, you beat me to it. The true beauty of "creation-science" is that it doesn't hold itself to the same methodology it attacks.

[itai195]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I guess I could be a jerk and ask you to defend the inherant flaws of carbon-dating, but that would be just baiting you. I already know what they are and they are simply to inconsistent for me to accept as stable science. I submit to you Itai that you are not to be enlightened. You are already ominiscient in your ideal and have no need for more information. There is nothing I could say to you that would refute what you believe. Hence, it is a belief in a theory afterall. I guess we all have religion to explain things.

Very well, I submit the same for you. I don't see how one can write off evolution because carbon-dating is 'flawed.' That seems like throwing the baby out with the bath water to me, and in any case doesn't constitute a relevant argument against evolution. I don't think On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection mentioned the practice anywhere.

In regards to what's his face breaking up with what's her face...that wasn't the intent of the thread. I addressed the intent of the thread. I told him I was sorry the two couldn't work it out. He could've learned something. You disagree no doubt.

Well okay, but you sure used certain overtones that seemed to invite a debate. But you're right, I do disagree. Evolution is one of the bedrock elements of biology -- I can understand why a biologist would want nothing to do with someone who believes in creationism.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by effgee:
Jeebus guys,

show me where I said that carbon-dating was exact and/or where I said any of you "creationists" are wrong.

Yes, carbon-dating is not accurate enough to determine the how old mother earth is - I never even implied that the opposite might be true. It is however true that carbon-dating is exact well beyond 3000 years.

And to all you guys reacting like I kicked you in the nads when I posted a simple, value-free one-line question:

Thanks for (once again) proving my point - never argue with fundamentalists.

Then why do the anti-religious crowd always start with the attacks?

And no one said carbon-dating was "bogus". It is highly flawed as has been pointed out.

And "value-free" question?!?!

[itai195]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
You didn't understand what I was getting at?

And there are no "fundamental differences of opinion" in your relationship? I am not just talking about evolution vs. creationism here. I find that heard to believe.

As a matter of fact, yup, I am in a long term relationship. But you're right, I should have qualified my statement. If my significant other believed in something that contradicted my entire belief system and life's work, you'd bet I'd have a problem with that.

In either case, Scientist wasn't in a long term relationship from the sounds of it and I should have mentioned that I was specifically referring to dating... I guess that's what you get when you post in a hurry and aren't precise enough. Notice that I also said 'difficult' and not 'impossible.' To Scientist's credit, it looks like he indeed tried to overcome it but found that she had a closed mind.

[ebuddy]

And to all you guys reacting like I kicked you in the nads when I posted a simple, value-free one-line question:

Thanks for (once again) proving my point - never argue with fundamentalists.

Above was the reason for breakup. Proof that I, in fact, adhered to and addressed the real intent of the thread. Look bro, you can BS a lot of folks here, but you cannot BS yourself. Not for a very long time anyway. Fun BS'n wit'cha though.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Oh, I tried. She did not enjoy discussing the matter.

I surround myself with people who are very different from me. She wasn't different (from most other people) or oparticularly special and that was my problem.

(She was freaking smart though. Wow. And she could write like no other.)

OK, fair enough

I withdraw my statement about you being shallow.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Scientist, I understand your belief, but there are opposing views to radiometric dating as well;

this for example, in black and white.

yet another one

The fact is, there is no winner or loser in this argument, except the one who refuses to research the other. I've learned about the origination of man by Evolutionists. Most of us have unfortunately. I was interested in disproving Creationism, but found simply too many holes in conventional wisdom. In honesty to myself, researched the other and came to a conclusion.

Geology really isn't my field of interest. Even if I dedicated my life to it I don't know if I would be particularly successful at independently verifying/disproving the age of the earth. I'm no chemist... I do know that the earth has to be quite old based on my interest in evolution (which is not at all casual) as well as my personal observations of fossils, erosion, etc. My interest in behavior also makes it quite apparent that the human mind is not well predisposed to scientific thinking. It can be done, but our human prejudices are quite difficult to tame.

[11011001]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Teach them both. Let them decide. Or are you of the brainwashing camp?

Isn't that still brainwashing if you teach them just science and creationism? To be truly objective one would have to expose them to every other religion on earth.

You know, Christianity isn't the only religion worth learning about... even believing in.