Why do Christians ignore the atrocities of the Old Testament?

c'mon. Be nice.

 

All evidence we have shows matter and energy converting into different forms of each other. We have zero evidence of matter or energy being created or destroyed, though some in quantum physics have positted that matter/energy could be coming into our universe from another universe via quantum foam.

 

Time is an illusion based on distance and perception. Not everyone perceives things the same way, therefore time will be different for each person.

 

You have gone off the deep end.
Let me repeat it line by line:
"Are you suggesting that the graduates that you describe as not having that particular understanding are victims of social promotions within the institution of higher education?" Meaning (reworded) "are you suggesting that the colleges graduated people who were not prepared to be graduates?"


Next line:
"If you are, do you have proof that those people conform to the description you have provided?" Reworded: "do you have proof that those graduates graduated without being properly prepared and trained in a manner that you deem appropriate?"

You see, if we cannot get past those two questions, there is no need to entertain any more of your drivel.

 

Just stating things as they are.

 

but wouldn't it have to come fronm somewhere?

- - - Updated - - -

So does the earth move slower for some people, and faster for others?

 

1. Why would matter/energy have to come from somewhere? Why couldn't it have always been here in one form or another?

2. The Earth rotates at a (mostly) constant rate, but our perception of time differs from person to person. Time also varies based on proximity to a gravity well. That means that even objective measures of time are slightly varied when in orbit compared to on the surface of the Earth.

 

I at this point do not know.
But you seem to think they are wrong.
But it is biblical scholars who developed the bible as well, with interpretations and translations that you claim to be inerrant.
So if you can't believe the time frames these scholars derive from the bible, how can you believe their interpretations and translations?

 

Absolutely. Do you think a ball spins at the same speed at the top of the ball as it does in the center?
Ever been in a long line marching in a parade? When making a corner, those near the end of the line have to nearly run, while those near the start of the turn barely move.

 

Well, certainly some of them aren't ready to be newly grads in the professional world. But no, that wasn't what I was talking about. All I was saying was that people with degrees of science don't necessarily have very good knowledge about the epistemological goals of science, which you make abundantly clear when you say things like "science fails at providing irrefutable proof."

These questions are not at all relevant to our discussion, and this second question is downright follish. If I had to prove that somebody isn't trained to a level I deem appropriate, all I'd have to say is that I don't deem their training appropriate. Now, stop puttering around and answer my questions that pertain to our discussion about science and irrefutable proof. It's clear that you're trying to shift the goal post, but it isn't going to work. I don't give a damn about your educational background, I care about the claims you have made and are now trying to shift away from.

 

Well, if those that you reference as "don't necessarily have very good knowledge about the epistemological goals of science", would mean that they are not adequately prepared. Now where is your irrefutable evidence for such a claim?

 

Adequately prepared for what? You seem to be claiming that knowledge about the philosophy of science is necessary for people to be adequately prepared for something. I'm making no such claim.

 

Now you shift to telling lies about what you have said.
"Well, certainly some of them aren't ready to be newly grads in the professional world."

 

When did I claim that knowledge about the philosophy of science was necessary for them to be graduates? You are the one saying this. Some people aren't prepared to be graduates, but I never said that the reason was because they didn't friggin' read Hume.

 

Opening sentence located here: http://www.politicalforum.com/relig...rocities-old-testament-67.html#post1062685996 . Wherein you blatantly stated that they are not prepared, then coupled with your other claims directed against me, there is the clearly implied message that those type people are not prepared due to the alleged absence of knowledge about the philosophy of science. Now prove the claim ... irrefutable evidence is necessary.

No, I am not saying that, I merely inquired of you about the subject. You have made all the declarations of alleged fact. Not me.

 

This was your rephrased question: "are you suggesting that the colleges graduated people who were not prepared to be graduates?"

This was my answer: "Well, certainly some of them aren't ready to be newly grads in the professional world."

First off, I'm sorry that you inferred something that I wasn't saying. If you had reworded your question to be "Are you suggesting that colleges graduated people who do not have sufficient knowledge about the philosophy of science, and are therefore not prepared to be graduates," then I would have said no. But, that isn't the way you reworded your question. You asked a vague question and I gave a vague answer. I'm sorry that you didn't take the time out of your day to make your question specific, but that isn't my fault. Hell, I even flat out said: "All I was saying was that people with degrees of science don't necessarily have very good knowledge about the epistemological goals of science, which you make abundantly clear when you say things like "science fails at providing irrefutable proof."

Are you unable to read Incorporeal? Why are you trying to put words in my mouth even after I clarified what I was implying?

Secondly, why are you avoiding answering my questions and trying to shift the topic? Why did you bring up your educational background? How is that related to the conversation we were having? Are you claiming that earning a science degree automatically means that a person knows about the philosophy of science? If you aren't claiming that, then this conversation has no bearing to what we were discussing.

 

I do not see a denial in the answer you provided above. In fact, it appears that you have agreed with me.

Asking questions is now interpreted as making an inference? No inference implied, however your statement of non denial only adds emphasis and credibility to what you are calling an inference.

I am not putting words in either your mouth or your mind or under the keys of your keyboard. You are in control of what you post on this forum. Your alleged clarification only added emphasis to what I have stated.

Well, talking about shifting the topic... Who was the first one to bring up a slur against the educational background of a member on this forum? Was it me? No! Then you are directing your accusation against the wrong person. When a slur is directed against me, I have every right in the world to defend my position with whatever tools are available and necessary.... even semantics.

 

I answered your vague question with a vague answer. You did not specify what people you were talking about, you did not specify in what capacity they were not prepared. I answered that some people are not prepared to graduate college and join the professional world. I see no specific mention in my quote about why I believed some people are not ready to be graduates, do you? No, you are inferring something that I'm not implying. I do not believe that an understanding about the philosophy of science is requisite or should be requisite to graduate. Is that clear enough for you?

"Wherein you blatantly stated that they are not prepared, then coupled with your other claims directed against me, there is the clearly implied message that those type people are not prepared due to the alleged absence of knowledge about the philosophy of science. Now prove the claim ... irrefutable evidence is necessary."

I see no question mark here. I see a claim that I implied something in my message, an implication that I specifically said was not something I was implying TWICE in my last post.

How? How in the world did it add emphasis to your claim about what I believe? It's a flat out denial of your claim.

What slur was used against your educational background?

"I'm unsure of how holding a degree in computer electronics has anything to do with knowing about the scientific method or the philosophical problems related to scientific pursuits. So please, elaborate on what science you're doing with a computer electronics degree."

Is what I said. Go ahead and explain to me how me admitting I don't understand why your educational background is related to the topic, and then me asking for an elaboration on what you actually do is a slur.

Why did you bring up your educational background to begin with? How is it related to the conversation?

 

maybe its just me, but everything ALWAYS existing makes no logical sense to me.

If the earth moves at a (mostly) constant rate, then time should be mostly constant, right? We may perceive it faster or slower, but it should be constant, excluding the micro-seconds that it may vary.