Originally Posted By: Diesel1
Do you honestly read one sentence, and rebuttal your demeaning nonsense? As we saw the conversion some how got out of hand, and I apologized for the situation of your misreading.
Lets look at the bigger picture, and not be flat landers. I'm a scientist, so what does that mean I look at the world in an objective manner. I will keep an open conclusion until i have seen facts, and figures that show eveidence.
The thing with beliveing in something that will take care of everyting is luneicy. We are here on earth, and if we dont take care with responsibility. Then what will happen?
Honestly I've come to terms with the fact that there are people like you were talking about.
That fact makes me sad that we've come so far, but we still cant allow the evidence presented in science. Really though Live a life you would be proud of in benefiting the human race. [/B]
The acceptance of science and the existence of faith are not mutually exclusive. What's wrong with someone having something that gives them a moral grounding? Nothing. Finding a "believer" that turns their back on science is, in reality, a very difficult thing. It needs to also be noted that one doesn't have to be a believer in God to be a religious zealot. Religions come in all forms, including those that some of us choose not to accept as such. Especially when we're a member of it.
There is no need to apologize for the situation getting out of hand due to another's "misreading". Particularly when it had nothing to do with "misreading", and everything to do with what was actually written. When you come here and jump on someone else, you'd best expect to get your just reward. That's the nature of this board and just about every other one I've ever been on. It keeps people honest, as most have an extraordinary ability to sense a load of bull.
The membership here are about as far from "flat landers" as you can get, as cold, hard data amounts to the Holy Grail
(if you'll forgive the religious reference) to them. I've yet to see anyone discount data using some absurd non-scientific basis. Opinion based subjects? Well, that's another matter, but I've yet to see anyone use a religious basis.
I've yet to also see anyone proclaim that a problem was a non-issue, due to a belief that "A higher power is going to fix it". Someone rejecting your stance on a subject doesn't mean that it's based on their faith, or lack thereof. One doesn't have to agree with, or live according to, another's way of life in order to leave the world a better place. Blaming religion, and the act of believing, is an easy way to use one's own prejudices to debase those that may hold an opposing viewpoint and its validity. The fact that there are those of faith who agree with your basic premise are a bit of an issue though, don't you think?
Your analysis of a situation may lead you to a certain conclusion, but it doesn't mean that your conclusion is correct. Science is subject to errors, with scientist induced error being the worst culprit. I remember a lot of reporting, from many reputable sources, of a coming ice-age. A number of those sources are now reporting just the opposite. Just what makes their analysis more reliable and valid than it was some 35 years ago? Keep in mind that they're using the same historical data sources that they were using then.
My last post may have been out of line, but did have a basis. Your posts have not reflected the level of education that you have asserted. However, in retrospect, I see that it may be due to English not being your first language. If this is the case, then I do apologize for that statement.
P.S.: To everyone else, I apologize for this
loooooong post!
and since im being so closed minded think of how many boats run around with carbed v8s. Tell me how expelling exhaust into are water supply is well>? Dont assume i have a pick up, since is makes an [censored] out of who>? I just want you to be a good member of earth, and think proactive.
