Is the science/theism dichotomy necessary?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand. It would be nice if no one was a liar. However, that is not reality.

Calling someone a liar doesn't advance the discussion in ways that interest me, and is generally a waste of time. That's my understanding of why I don't like it.

So back to the topic. We have before us two opposing opinions on how long it took to form the grand canyon (that will serve as a proxy for young versus old earth.) Where do we go from here?

Originally posted by JS357
Calling someone a liar doesn't advance the discussion in ways that interest me, and is generally a waste of time. That's my understanding of why I don't like it.

So back to the topic. We have before us two opposing opinions on how long it took to form the grand canyon (that will serve as a proxy for young versus old earth.) Where do we go from here?

The Explosion That Rocked the Geologic Column: Mount St Helens

YouTube

Originally posted by JS357
Calling someone a liar doesn't advance the discussion in ways that interest me, and is generally a waste of time. That's my understanding of why I don't like it.

So back to the topic. We have before us two opposing opinions on how long it took to form the grand canyon (that will serve as a proxy for young versus old earth.) Where do we go from here?

He doesn't even understand the question.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Explosion That Rocked the Geologic Column: Mount St Helens

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NQv2EzG2mE

I'm sorry not to have enough of my life left to give 48 minutes to this youtube.

Originally posted by JS357
I'm sorry not to have enough of my life left to give 48 minutes to this youtube.

I am sorry for you too. 🙁

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sorry for you too. 🙁

I was apologizing to you for not looking at what you offered. I am not at all sorry for myself.

Originally posted by JS357
I was apologizing to you for not looking at what you offered. I am not at all sorry for myself.

Okay, I understand. Sort of a little white lie to spare my feelings. Thanks.

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi all,

I don't post in the SF much anymore for the obvious readons of futility and frustration, but this seemed like an interesting topic. Thanks FMF.

Having waded through all 8 pages, I found some important points that were lost and buried in the succeeding debri. Here are some comments:

Firstly, my answer to the OP is a definite NO. There certain ...[text shortened]... were actually the verbally inspired WoG, that it would be clear for all to understand and agree.

Dualistic thinking at its finest.

Response to my two postings about creation of the Grand Canyon is also a good example of dualistic thinking. FMF both responded (1) to it and ignored (2) it. And no response (simply ignoring) could be called dualistic thinking by default.

Everyone has control over the content of their own messages and arguments, but as far as I'm concerned that's where anyones control begins and ends.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Response to my two postings about creation of the Grand Canyon is also a good example of dualistic thinking. FMF both responded (1) to it and ignored (2) it. And no response (simply ignoring) could be called dualistic thinking by default.

Yes I responded, you are right. I referred to your Grand Canyon belief three or four times. I'm not sure what more you wanted me to say about it. It prompted a follow up question ~ which you ignored ~ in which I asked you how you think your explanation for the Grand Canyon applies to the specific exhortation in the OP.

Originally posted by FMF
Yes I responded, you are right. I referred to your Grand Canyon belief three or four times. I'm not sure what more you wanted me to say about it. It prompted a follow up question ~ which you ignored ~ in which I asked you how you think your explanation for the Grand Canyon applies to the specific exhortation in the OP.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I was responding to CalJusts recent post here, and not your specific exhortation or that other post of his you used for your specific exhortation.

Or, perhaps you have a few additional (or specifically tailor made) rules in mind for this particular thread. If so, then you should have outlined any additional rules for posting in the OP. Then I could have decided for myself whether or not I wanted to follow those particular rules.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Everyone has control over the content of their own messages and arguments, but as far as I'm concerned that's where anyones control begins and ends."

Originally posted by lemon lime
Perhaps you didn't notice that I was responding to CalJusts [b]recent post here, and not the post you used for your specific exhortation.

Or, perhaps you have a few additional (or specifically tailor made) rules in mind for this particular thread. If so, then you should have outlined any additional rules for posting in the OP. Then I could have decided for myself whether or not I wanted to follow those particular rules.[/b]

These 'rules' you mention are something you are imagining. Sounds a bit belaboured, as deflections go. Should the scientists that have argued that the Grand Canyon is younger than other scientists thought, be respected for their work regardless of their religious beliefs?

Originally posted by FMF
These 'rules' you mention are something you are imagining. Sounds a bit belaboured, as deflections go. Should the scientists that have argued that the Grand Canyon is younger than other scientists thought, be respected for their work regardless of their religious beliefs?

No, I'm not imagining rules. I was asking you if there are any unspoken rules you wish for everyone to abide by. Do I have your permission to talk to anyone else here, or does anything I say need to go through you first? The reason I'm asking is because I noticed you didn't argue with CalJust over his message on dualism. So why did you attempt to deflect attention from my response to his post?

You apparently approved of his post, because you didn't bother to comment on it or advise him to respond to the OP. So if his post was an appropriate response to your specific exhortation in the OP, or appropriate for any reason, whether it had anything to with your OP or not, then how could my on topic response to his (appropriate) on topic message be inappropriate?
Do you intend to answer this, or not?

Originally posted by lemon lime
You apparently approved of his post, because you didn't bother to comment on it or advise him to respond to the OP. So if his post was an appropriate response to your specific exhortation in the OP, or appropriate for any reason, whether it had anything to with your OP or not, then how could my on topic response to his (appropriate) on topic message be inappropriate?
Do you intend to answer this, or not?

CalJust's response to my OP was a response to my OP, and he seemed to understand the OP, so I didn't need to "advise him to respond to the OP". I then took a part of it and used it to start a thread ~ which has generated no interest whatsoever.

Originally posted by lemon lime
No, I'm not imagining rules. I was asking you if there are any unspoken rules you wish for everyone to abide by.

The only 'rules' that have been mentioned here are these supposedly "unspoken" ones in your imagination. You seem to be deflecting from a really straight forward on-topic question. It's interesting.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Do I have your permission to talk to anyone else here, or does anything I say need to go through you first?

This is deflection pure and simple. I have asked you a point blank question and here you are talking about imaginary "rules" and "permission" instead.