****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Pickles]

Here's a recent PNAS paper by Matteo Pasquali who is in the ChE department at Rice. I worked with Matteo when I was an undergrad. At that time, he was more interested in rheology, but Rice has a ton of carbon nanotube stuff (obviously.. Richard Smalley earned his Nobel Prize for that work when he was still around), so that probably explains the transition.

After MasterofOrion emails the editor, I'm sure this will have to be retracted.

 

[Jayrok]

Can we just fast forward through the part where you ask a bunch of questions designed to trap the answerer, and go straight to whatever point you're trying to make?

After further review... the play stands as called.Jayrok, if you want to discuss whether the NT authors took Genesis literally or not, just bring it up. No need to put me through a battery of questions when you're just going to discard most of the answers and some of the questions in order to bring up what you really want to discuss.

Well, I'm glad to see that you aren't defensive or anything. I'm asking how you (Ferris) feel about theistic evolution when compared to NT teachings. It seems Paul and others viewed Genesis as historical, as do most Christians that I know. NT theology makes sense with a real Adam and Eve story. The concept of original sin makes sense if the fall of man, one man (Adam), ushered sin into the world (as Paul claimed). Or perhaps you believe God created man with a sinful nature.

Maybe Paul thought Adam was symbolic, but was communicating with others who thought the Adam described in Genesis was literal truth, and he didn't want his audience to miss or discard the major points he was trying to make, so he didn't see the point in nitpicking those details at that time.

The major point I was thinking about is Paul's point that sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience. Do you think that is an important detail in his preaching about sin and salvation? If Paul thought Adam was fictional, did he assign the origin of sin to Adam just so that his audience would associate it with the story in the Garden? That could be the case. But I wonder what Paul really thought about the origin of sin if he figured Adam didn't really exist. Is it even important? Would anything change if the truth was that sin always existed?

Maybe Paul thought Adam was real, but also thought many matters within the Bible are disputable ones as he described in Romans 14, and didn't think Adam's literal/symbolic status had no bearing on Salvation, so he didn't spend much time thinking about it or though other stuff was more important.

I can see that and I don't think Paul spent much time at all talking about Adam. But he did use Adam for an important lesson regarding sin. Man is sinful and destined to destruction without the grace of Jesus Christ. But was man always sinful or did man fall from God's grace when he disobeyed at some point within the thousands of years of human evolution?I don't have a hidden agenda. I'm really curious to see if theistic evolution is compatible with NT teachings. If it isn't, then it doesn't change how I view things. If it is, then I would like to re-examine Genesis from that point of view. For the record, Genesis being literal or symbolic isn't something that is a big deal to me. I understand much of the Bible is allegorical.

 

[Jayrok]

CrossEyed: I imagine you lurked in this thread at some point or another. Do you believe that "theistic evolution" is compatible with NT teachings about sin and salvation? If so, how? If not, why not?

Appreciate your input.

 

[matuski]

Here's a recent PNAS paper by Matteo Pasquali who is in the ChE department at Rice. I worked with Matteo when I was an undergrad. At that time, he was more interested in rheology, but Rice has a ton of carbon nanotube stuff (obviously.. Richard Smalley earned his Nobel Prize for that work when he was still around), so that probably explains the transition.

After MasterofOrion emails the editor, I'm sure this will have to be retracted.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Here's a recent PNAS paper by Matteo Pasquali who is in the ChE department at Rice. I worked with Matteo when I was an undergrad. At that time, he was more interested in rheology, but Rice has a ton of carbon nanotube stuff (obviously.. Richard Smalley earned his Nobel Prize for that work when he was still around), so that probably explains the transition.

After MasterofOrion emails the editor, I'm sure this will have to be retracted.

Nano technology is something PNAS would be interested in and is a chemical engineering topic. How does T-cells and protein folding apply to chemical engineering ? which has always been my main question

 

[matuski]

find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?

St. Augustine (ca 400AD)

Indeed. How?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Here's a recent PNAS paper by Matteo Pasquali who is in the ChE department at Rice. I worked with Matteo when I was an undergrad. At that time, he was more interested in rheology, but Rice has a ton of carbon nanotube stuff (obviously.. Richard Smalley earned his Nobel Prize for that work when he was still around), so that probably explains the transition.

After MasterofOrion emails the editor, I'm sure this will have to be retracted.

Nano technology is something PNAS would be interested in and is a chemical engineering topic.

Yes, no kidding.

How does T-cells and protein folding apply to chemical engineering ? which has always been my main question

No, you claimed PNAS wasn't multidisciplinary, dispite it saying so on their web page. There's plenty of biology studied in chemical engineering departments. Hell, a lot of them are now reflecting this in their name. It's often chemical and biochemical or some other bio-related discipline.

Chemical engineering is probably the most diverse engineering discipline. What you understand it to be is about 40 years out of date.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Here's a recent PNAS paper by Matteo Pasquali who is in the ChE department at Rice. I worked with Matteo when I was an undergrad. At that time, he was more interested in rheology, but Rice has a ton of carbon nanotube stuff (obviously.. Richard Smalley earned his Nobel Prize for that work when he was still around), so that probably explains the transition.

After MasterofOrion emails the editor, I'm sure this will have to be retracted.

Nano technology is something PNAS would be interested in and is a chemical engineering topic.

Yes, no kidding.

How does T-cells and protein folding apply to chemical engineering ? which has always been my main question

No, you claimed PNAS wasn't multidisciplinary, dispite it saying so on their web page. There's plenty of biology studied in chemical engineering departments. Hell, a lot of them are now reflecting this in their name. It's often chemical and biochemical or some other bio-related discipline.

Chemical engineering is probably the most diverse engineering discipline. What you understand it to be is about 40 years out of date.

Nano technology is an orphan, like ceramic engineering was 20 years ago. But it is become its own discipline soon. It already is in some bigger schools. In my college Chemical Engineering and Petroleum Engineering where in the Chemical Engineering department. Some of the Professors taught both subjects. However, they are very different disciplines. The same is true of chemical engineering and bio-chemical engineering. They may be in the same department but they are not the same, they are very different, just as is petroleum and chemical engineering are . Now if you said that you were a bio-chemical engineer I would retract my statement.

One thing of note. You never ever answered the question. How does protein folding and T cells fit into Chemical Engineering? The way you talk it does not appear you know what Chemical Engineers do. You have often associated it with biochemistry not bio-chemical engineering or chemical engineering.

Protein folding: Small protein will have ~ 160 amino acids. So even small proteins are huge and in order for them to work with other proteins they have to folded precisely. Why:

1. Steric Interference. Big bulky chemicals don't nest with other big bulky chemicals. There shapes have to be compatible to work together

2. Attracting and repulsive forces have to correctly alligned. Amino acids (AA) have unique characteristics and in order to work with other proteins these amino acids that nest with other proteins that are compatible with each other. For example, amino acids can be cationic , anionic, hydrophobic, hydrophilic... But you can't have a anionic AA aligned with another anionic AA because they repulse each other same.. Any protein misfold will cause the protein to fail.

The point is proteins are designed to work with specific other proteins. Or better stated, Protiens are designed to work with other proteins in biological applications, not commercial chemical applications. Proteins are are too big and precise to be made in a commercial applications that chemical engineers employ. . Large chain organic chemicals of this magnitude are made in small quantities using silicon chips and other technologies that bio chemical engineers employ. Not chemical engineers.

So what was your protein folding paper about specifically and how does it relate to chemical engineering?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

In my college Chemical Engineering and Petroleum Engineering where in the Chemical Engineering department. Some of the Professors taught both subjects. However, they are very different disciplines. The same is true of chemical engineering and bio-chemical engineering. They may be in the same department but they are not the same, they are very different, just as is petroleum and chemical engineering are . Now if you said that you were a bio-chemical engineer I would retract my statement.

If I had said that I am something I am not, you would retract it? Interesting.Petroleum engineering really only exists on its own in the south where there's oil. Places like Texas A&M and the like. Petroleum engineering was pulled into ChE departments eons ago. You're showing your age.

One thing of note. You never ever answered the question. How does protein folding and T cells fit into Chemical Engineering? The way you talk it does not appear you know what Chemical Engineers do. You have often associated it with biochemistry not bio-chemical engineering or chemical engineering.

Chemical engineers do all kinds of things. You seem to believe that virtually any bio-related topic is off limits. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Take a quick scan through some of the top ChE departments (Minnesota, UW-Madison, Princeton, Texas, Berkeley, etc.) and you'll find an amazing diversity of research topics. Things don't stay in neat little discrete departments anymore.My work with T-cells and protein folding (structural biology) wasn't performed at within a chemical engineering department. It was at a government lab. I suppose next you're going to tell me the government doesn't support research like that. If I told you what our group was named, you'd probably completely lose your mind because it wouldn't make any sense to you. The T-cell work specifically was in collaboration with a medical school. The protein folding work was in house.

Protein folding: Small protein will have ~ 160 amino acids. So even small proteins are huge and in order for them to work with other proteins they have to folded precisely. Why:1. Steric Interference. Big bulky chemicals don't nest with other big bulky chemicals. There shapes have to be compatible to work together2. Attracting and repulsive forces have to correctly alligned. Amino acids (AA) have unique characteristics and in order to work with other proteins these amino acids that nest with other proteins that are compatible with each other. For example, amino acids can be cationic , anionic, hydrophobic, hydrophilic... But you can't have a anionic AA aligned with another anionic AA because they repulse each other same.. Any protein misfold will cause the protein to fail. The point is proteins are designed to work with specific other proteins. Or better stated, Protiens are designed to work with other proteins in biological applications, not commercial chemical applications. Proteins are are too big and precise to be made in a commercial applications that chemical engineers employ. . Large chain organic chemicals of this magnitude are made in small quantities using silicon chips and other technologies that bio chemical engineers employ. Not chemical engineers. So what was your protein folding paper about specifically and how does it relate to chemical engineering?

Not sure why you're cutting and pasting some crash course in protein chemistry, but chemical engineers are very much interested in proteins. One area of interest is catalysis. Enzymes are proteins with catalytic function, and so chemical engineers want to both understand their function from a molecular standpoint and learn ways of enhancing specific activity through protein engineering. Some of this work is experimental, but a lot of people (maybe you included) would probably be surprised to learn how much of this work is computational. Yes, there are chemical engineers who do nothing but sit at a computer and write code all day.Are we getting close to done with this exercise? I want to plan my week.

 

[bakes]

In my college Chemical Engineering and Petroleum Engineering where in the Chemical Engineering department. Some of the Professors taught both subjects. However, they are very different disciplines. The same is true of chemical engineering and bio-chemical engineering. They may be in the same department but they are not the same, they are very different, just as is petroleum and chemical engineering are . Now if you said that you were a bio-chemical engineer I would retract my statement.

If I had said that I am something I am not, you would retract it? Interesting.Petroleum engineering really only exists on its own in the south where there's oil. Places like Texas A&M and the like. Petroleum engineering was pulled into ChE departments eons ago. You're showing your age.

One thing of note. You never ever answered the question. How does protein folding and T cells fit into Chemical Engineering? The way you talk it does not appear you know what Chemical Engineers do. You have often associated it with biochemistry not bio-chemical engineering or chemical engineering.

Chemical engineers do all kinds of things. You seem to believe that virtually any bio-related topic is off limits. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Take a quick scan through some of the top ChE departments (Minnesota, UW-Madison, Princeton, Texas, Berkeley, etc.) and you'll find an amazing diversity of research topics. Things don't stay in neat little discrete departments anymore.My work with T-cells and protein folding (structural biology) wasn't performed at within a chemical engineering department. It was at a government lab. I suppose next you're going to tell me the government doesn't support research like that. If I told you what our group was named, you'd probably completely lose your mind because it wouldn't make any sense to you. The T-cell work specifically was in collaboration with a medical school. The protein folding work was in house.

Protein folding: Small protein will have ~ 160 amino acids. So even small proteins are huge and in order for them to work with other proteins they have to folded precisely. Why:1. Steric Interference. Big bulky chemicals don't nest with other big bulky chemicals. There shapes have to be compatible to work together2. Attracting and repulsive forces have to correctly alligned. Amino acids (AA) have unique characteristics and in order to work with other proteins these amino acids that nest with other proteins that are compatible with each other. For example, amino acids can be cationic , anionic, hydrophobic, hydrophilic... But you can't have a anionic AA aligned with another anionic AA because they repulse each other same.. Any protein misfold will cause the protein to fail. The point is proteins are designed to work with specific other proteins. Or better stated, Protiens are designed to work with other proteins in biological applications, not commercial chemical applications. Proteins are are too big and precise to be made in a commercial applications that chemical engineers employ. . Large chain organic chemicals of this magnitude are made in small quantities using silicon chips and other technologies that bio chemical engineers employ. Not chemical engineers. So what was your protein folding paper about specifically and how does it relate to chemical engineering?

Not sure why you're cutting and pasting some crash course in protein chemistry, but chemical engineers are very much interested in proteins. One area of interest is catalysis. Enzymes are proteins with catalytic function, and so chemical engineers want to both understand their function from a molecular standpoint and learn ways of enhancing specific activity through protein engineering. Some of this work is experimental, but a lot of people (maybe you included) would probably be surprised to learn how much of this work is computational. Yes, there are chemical engineers who do nothing but sit at a computer and write code all day.Are we getting close to done with this exercise? I want to plan my week.

Just to chime in as another ChemE in support... in my line of work (environmental regulation and wastewater treatment system design) we deal with everything from civil to biological as it pertains to both chemical and environmental engineering. Yes, ChemE is the base, but there are so many ways in which research and work will lead us off into other related disciplines to find the solution to problems, or at least understand the source of the issue that we are dealing with, that to pigeonhole it is to miss the point of engineering in its entirety. Understanding the interrelationship between various microbes on floc formation in activated sludge treatment plants? We have three ChemE staff who specialize in it. Engineering = creative problem solving.

 

[matuski]

poor golddigger.

 

[MasterofOrion]

In my college Chemical Engineering and Petroleum Engineering where in the Chemical Engineering department. Some of the Professors taught both subjects. However, they are very different disciplines. The same is true of chemical engineering and bio-chemical engineering. They may be in the same department but they are not the same, they are very different, just as is petroleum and chemical engineering are . Now if you said that you were a bio-chemical engineer I would retract my statement.

If I had said that I am something I am not, you would retract it? Interesting.Petroleum engineering really only exists on its own in the south where there's oil. Places like Texas A&M and the like. Petroleum engineering was pulled into ChE departments eons ago. You're showing your age. You made my point. Some Chemical Engineering departments have Petroleum Engineering, Metallurgical Engineering, Ceramic Engineering, Material Science (although mostly Mechanical Engineering) , Bio- Chemical Engineering .... The point is these curriculums are much different from Chemical Engineering even though they are under the umbrella of Chemical Engineering.

One thing of note. You never ever answered the question. How does protein folding and T cells fit into Chemical Engineering? The way you talk it does not appear you know what Chemical Engineers do. You have often associated it with biochemistry not bio-chemical engineering or chemical engineering.

Chemical engineers do all kinds of things. You seem to believe that virtually any bio-related topic is off limits. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Take a quick scan through some of the top ChE departments (Minnesota, UW-Madison, Princeton, Texas, Berkeley, etc.) and you'll find an amazing diversity of research topics. Things don't stay in neat little discrete departments anymore.My work with T-cells and protein folding (structural biology) wasn't performed at within a chemical engineering department. It was at a government lab. I suppose next you're going to tell me the government doesn't support research like that. If I told you what our group was named, you'd probably completely lose your mind because it wouldn't make any sense to you. The T-cell work specifically was in collaboration with a medical school. The protein folding work was in house. You are so full of it. You worked with T- cells at a Medical school. That is not Chemical Engineering that is Bio-Medical Engineering. It is clear you have no idea what Chemical Engineers do. My future son in law is a bio Medical Engineer.

Protein folding: Small protein will have ~ 160 amino acids. So even small proteins are huge and in order for them to work with other proteins they have to folded precisely. Why:

1. Steric Interference. Big bulky chemicals don't nest with other big bulky chemicals. There shapes have to be compatible to work together

2. Attracting and repulsive forces have to correctly alligned. Amino acids (AA) have unique characteristics and in order to work with other proteins these amino acids that nest with other proteins that are compatible with each other. For example, amino acids can be cationic , anionic, hydrophobic, hydrophilic... But you can't have a anionic AA aligned with another anionic AA because they repulse each other same.. Any protein misfold will cause the protein to fail.

The point is proteins are designed to work with specific other proteins. Or better stated, Protiens are designed to work with other proteins in biological applications, not commercial chemical applications. Proteins are are too big and precise to be made in a commercial applications that chemical engineers employ. . Large chain organic chemicals of this magnitude are made in small quantities using silicon chips and other technologies that bio chemical engineers employ. Not chemical engineers.

So what was your protein folding paper about specifically and how does it relate to chemical engineering?

Not sure why you're cutting and pasting some crash course in protein chemistry, but chemical engineers are very much interested in proteins. One area of interest is catalysis. Enzymes are proteins with catalytic function, and so chemical engineers want to both understand their function from a molecular standpoint and learn ways of enhancing specific activity through protein engineering. Some of this work is experimental, but a lot of people (maybe you included) would probably be surprised to learn how much of this work is computational. Yes, there are chemical engineers who do nothing but sit at a computer and write code all day.

I have been working in the catalyst field for over 20 years. I have worked with enzymes for chemical applications mostly homogeneous catalyst used for polymer applications: Organometallic catalyst, metallocenes, Single site catalyst.... Yes it is very computational, we do, and I have done, CFD (computational fluid dynamics), numerical modeling for PDE's and ODE's for non linear non-homogeneous kinetic reactions, finite element analysis, Apsen, Hysis, SimSci... So i very much understand how enzymes are used and the computational side of it. (as a side not 95% of my work is with heterogeneous catalyst)

Protein folding is what biomedical engineers do. I have recently been through a plant that does protein folding and amino acid sequencing through a process called xxxxx (purposely crossed a process that using computer chips to array the amino acids). Very interesting stuff which bio Chemical Engineers use. I have met of these engineers, scientists, about what they were doing. This is a field all to itself that requires hard core bio-chemistry which is what Bio-Chemical Engineers are trained to do.

As far as cutting and pasting, that didn't happen in this or the previous post.

Are we getting close to done with this exercise? I want to plan my week.

Since protein folding is a specialty of yours I issue this challenge. Lets talk about the problems protein folding causes to evolution. This should be a cake walk for you, because your are an expert in this field, have a Ph.D. OTOH hand I do not have a Ph.D and I have never taken a bio-chemistry class. Easy pickings.

Are you game or will you deflect the challenge? Lets talk about enzymes and their roll in protein folding.

 

[MasterofOrion]

In my college Chemical Engineering and Petroleum Engineering where in the Chemical Engineering department. Some of the Professors taught both subjects. However, they are very different disciplines. The same is true of chemical engineering and bio-chemical engineering. They may be in the same department but they are not the same, they are very different, just as is petroleum and chemical engineering are . Now if you said that you were a bio-chemical engineer I would retract my statement.

If I had said that I am something I am not, you would retract it? Interesting.Petroleum engineering really only exists on its own in the south where there's oil. Places like Texas A&M and the like. Petroleum engineering was pulled into ChE departments eons ago. You're showing your age.

One thing of note. You never ever answered the question. How does protein folding and T cells fit into Chemical Engineering? The way you talk it does not appear you know what Chemical Engineers do. You have often associated it with biochemistry not bio-chemical engineering or chemical engineering.

Chemical engineers do all kinds of things. You seem to believe that virtually any bio-related topic is off limits. Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. Take a quick scan through some of the top ChE departments (Minnesota, UW-Madison, Princeton, Texas, Berkeley, etc.) and you'll find an amazing diversity of research topics. Things don't stay in neat little discrete departments anymore.My work with T-cells and protein folding (structural biology) wasn't performed at within a chemical engineering department. It was at a government lab. I suppose next you're going to tell me the government doesn't support research like that. If I told you what our group was named, you'd probably completely lose your mind because it wouldn't make any sense to you. The T-cell work specifically was in collaboration with a medical school. The protein folding work was in house.

Protein folding: Small protein will have ~ 160 amino acids. So even small proteins are huge and in order for them to work with other proteins they have to folded precisely. Why:1. Steric Interference. Big bulky chemicals don't nest with other big bulky chemicals. There shapes have to be compatible to work together2. Attracting and repulsive forces have to correctly alligned. Amino acids (AA) have unique characteristics and in order to work with other proteins these amino acids that nest with other proteins that are compatible with each other. For example, amino acids can be cationic , anionic, hydrophobic, hydrophilic... But you can't have a anionic AA aligned with another anionic AA because they repulse each other same.. Any protein misfold will cause the protein to fail. The point is proteins are designed to work with specific other proteins. Or better stated, Protiens are designed to work with other proteins in biological applications, not commercial chemical applications. Proteins are are too big and precise to be made in a commercial applications that chemical engineers employ. . Large chain organic chemicals of this magnitude are made in small quantities using silicon chips and other technologies that bio chemical engineers employ. Not chemical engineers. So what was your protein folding paper about specifically and how does it relate to chemical engineering?

Not sure why you're cutting and pasting some crash course in protein chemistry, but chemical engineers are very much interested in proteins. One area of interest is catalysis. Enzymes are proteins with catalytic function, and so chemical engineers want to both understand their function from a molecular standpoint and learn ways of enhancing specific activity through protein engineering. Some of this work is experimental, but a lot of people (maybe you included) would probably be surprised to learn how much of this work is computational. Yes, there are chemical engineers who do nothing but sit at a computer and write code all day.Are we getting close to done with this exercise? I want to plan my week.

Just to chime in as another ChemE in support... in my line of work (environmental regulation and wastewater treatment system design) we deal with everything from civil to biological as it pertains to both chemical and environmental engineering. Yes, ChemE is the base, but there are so many ways in which research and work will lead us off into other related disciplines to find the solution to problems, or at least understand the source of the issue that we are dealing with, that to pigeonhole it is to miss the point of engineering in its entirety. Understanding the interrelationship between various microbes on floc formation in activated sludge treatment plants? We have three ChemE staff who specialize in it. Engineering = creative problem solving.

I worked in that field early in my career. I worked as an employees of EIMCO but also helped floc companies like Allied Colloids, American Cyanamid, Flourger .. for mining applications and waste water applications.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Seek help.

 

[shader]

This thread went downhill quick.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Seek help.

A deflect to my challenge. All you do is ridicule as a backbencher to the thread. With all your expertise you don't need to be a backbencher. Engage don't troll. It is unbecoming of someone of your supposed expertise.

 

[Mario Kart]

Seek help.

A deflect to my challenge. All you do is ridicule as a backbencher to the thread. With all your expertise you don't need to be a backbencher. Engage don't troll. It is unbecoming of someone of your supposed expertise.

+1Bruce comes out swinging. The gauntlet is thrown down. Bruce wants, nay, needs to battle on the ground he creates. He has thrown out all of his credentials while not believing any that have been stated his way. Bruce has been a serial copy/paster with terrible editing skills. Mr. Pickles resorts to his own knowledge and rarely copy/pastes.Bruce is on top, ready to roll. Bruce's tactic is to throw out question after question but never answers any thrown at him. Bruce uses scientific data upon data to reach and persuay others into believing that an "intelligent" being is responsible for all of this. He neglects other faiths and other, older, stories to claim the Creator is from the Bible. Bruce is throwing hard against Pickles.Mr. Pickles gets up but is he hobbling? Is he ready to answer question upon question when the same favor is never returned? Bruce is up and ready to go. Bible in hand and "control C" in the other. Round 2

 

[MasterofOrion]

Seek help.

A deflect to my challenge. All you do is ridicule as a backbencher to the thread. With all your expertise you don't need to be a backbencher. Engage don't troll. It is unbecoming of someone of your supposed expertise.

+1Bruce comes out swinging.

The gauntlet is thrown down. Bruce wants, nay, needs to battle on the ground he creates. He has thrown out all of his credentials while not believing any that have been stated his way. Bruce has been a serial copy/paster with terrible editing skills. Mr. Pickles resorts to his own knowledge and rarely copy/pastes.

Bruce is on top, ready to roll. Bruce's tactic is to throw out question after question but never answers any thrown at him. Bruce uses scientific data upon data to reach and persuay others into believing that an "intelligent" being is responsible for all of this. He neglects other faiths and other, older, stories to claim the Creator is from the Bible. Bruce is throwing hard against Pickles.

Mr. Pickles gets up but is he hobbling? Is he ready to answer question upon question when the same favor is never returned? Bruce is up and ready to go. Bible in hand and "control C" in the other.

Round 2

Wrong

 

[Mario Kart]

Seek help.

A deflect to my challenge. All you do is ridicule as a backbencher to the thread. With all your expertise you don't need to be a backbencher. Engage don't troll. It is unbecoming of someone of your supposed expertise.

+1Bruce comes out swinging.

The gauntlet is thrown down. Bruce wants, nay, needs to battle on the ground he creates. He has thrown out all of his credentials while not believing any that have been stated his way. Bruce has been a serial copy/paster with terrible editing skills. Mr. Pickles resorts to his own knowledge and rarely copy/pastes.

Bruce is on top, ready to roll. Bruce's tactic is to throw out question after question but never answers any thrown at him. Bruce uses scientific data upon data to reach and persuay others into believing that an "intelligent" being is responsible for all of this. He neglects other faiths and other, older, stories to claim the Creator is from the Bible. Bruce is throwing hard against Pickles.

Mr. Pickles gets up but is he hobbling? Is he ready to answer question upon question when the same favor is never returned? Bruce is up and ready to go. Bible in hand and "control C" in the other.

Round 2

Wrong

Wow, sums up your posts pretty well.

 

[matuski]

Seek help.

A deflect to my challenge. All you do is ridicule as a backbencher to the thread. With all your expertise you don't need to be a backbencher. Engage don't troll. It is unbecoming of someone of your supposed expertise.

+1Bruce comes out swinging.

The gauntlet is thrown down. Bruce wants, nay, needs to battle on the ground he creates. He has thrown out all of his credentials while not believing any that have been stated his way. Bruce has been a serial copy/paster with terrible editing skills. Mr. Pickles resorts to his own knowledge and rarely copy/pastes.

Bruce is on top, ready to roll. Bruce's tactic is to throw out question after question but never answers any thrown at him. Bruce uses scientific data upon data to reach and persuay others into believing that an "intelligent" being is responsible for all of this. He neglects other faiths and other, older, stories to claim the Creator is from the Bible. Bruce is throwing hard against Pickles.

Mr. Pickles gets up but is he hobbling? Is he ready to answer question upon question when the same favor is never returned? Bruce is up and ready to go. Bible in hand and "control C" in the other.

Round 2

Wrong

Bruce has been a serial copy/paster with terrible editing skills.

DOH!

 

[Mister CIA]

Seek help.

A deflect to my challenge. All you do is ridicule as a backbencher to the thread. With all your expertise you don't need to be a backbencher. Engage don't troll. It is unbecoming of someone of your supposed expertise.

And then?

 

[Marvin]

Biblical 'literalist' Ken Ham says "Bill Nye doesn't really understand science."

In other news: Cade McNown says Peyton Manning doesn't really understand football.

 

[Frostillicus]

OTOH hand I do not have a Ph.D and I have never taken a bio-chemistry class.

GET OUT

 

[Frostillicus]

I'm just happy were are finally LETS TALK CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

 

[shader]

Ferris took his ball and went home.

Ferris wait...

For someone so quick to label others for taking this board too seriously, you sure have followed me to a lot of different threads, talking #### about me and not actually discussing the topic at hand with me. But I'm sure you've got some awesome reasons why I'm incorrect about that.BTW... that "Christians can't agree" note you keep humping is nothing more than a red herring. Christians are neither ordered to agree on everything nor expected to agree on everything. There's even a Bible passage titled "Disputable Matters" that addresses this. Indirectly, there's a pile of Biblical support for endorsing the notion of humans having different ideas, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses, passions, values, and more. The directive is not to all arrive at the same conclusions about everything, but to figure out how we can support each other's different abilities and priorities to help each other out and make the collective stronger than the sum of the individuals. You keep claiming Christians all need to agree with each other, but the actual message is that we all need each other.

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know, yet you haven't seemed to be familiar with this concept or the passages discussing it. While that doesn't necessarily disprove your claim of greater knowledge, it doesn't support it. Also, this is not the first time Biblical support for disputable matters has been brought to your attention. So when you're humping that note, it means you remain steadfastly stuck in an incorrect belief even after being presented with sufficient evidence against it. While this makes no statement about your general intelligence, on this one you're coming off as knowledgeable about Christian theology as MoO is coming off as a science expert.

When you're claiming victory because of the dearth of Christians willing to refute your claim that Christians can't agree, understand it's possible no one is even bothering to address it because it doesn't matter anywhere near as much as you think it is.

Matsuki has never shown even a cursory amount of knowledge regarding the bible. There are plenty of other subjects it's obvious he understands well but the bible is not one of them.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Biblical 'literalist' Ken Ham says "Bill Nye doesn't really understand science."

In other news: Cade McNown says Peyton Manning doesn't really understand football.

Can't argue with this?But ultimately I still believe this is the real question, the real threat to Christians who take Genesis literally.

 

[Marvin]

Biblical 'literalist' Ken Ham says "Bill Nye doesn't really understand science."

In other news: Cade McNown says Peyton Manning doesn't really understand football.

Can't argue with this?But ultimately I still believe this is the real question, the real threat to Christians who take Genesis literally.

 

[Marvin]

Or how can you take Genesis literally when it contradicts itself almost right off the bat?God creates animals and then creates man.

And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

God creates man and then animals.

002:018 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.002:019 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

 

[matuski]

Ferris took his ball and went home.

Ferris wait...

For someone so quick to label others for taking this board too seriously, you sure have followed me to a lot of different threads, talking #### about me and not actually discussing the topic at hand with me. But I'm sure you've got some awesome reasons why I'm incorrect about that.BTW... that "Christians can't agree" note you keep humping is nothing more than a red herring. Christians are neither ordered to agree on everything nor expected to agree on everything. There's even a Bible passage titled "Disputable Matters" that addresses this. Indirectly, there's a pile of Biblical support for endorsing the notion of humans having different ideas, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses, passions, values, and more. The directive is not to all arrive at the same conclusions about everything, but to figure out how we can support each other's different abilities and priorities to help each other out and make the collective stronger than the sum of the individuals. You keep claiming Christians all need to agree with each other, but the actual message is that we all need each other.

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know, yet you haven't seemed to be familiar with this concept or the passages discussing it. While that doesn't necessarily disprove your claim of greater knowledge, it doesn't support it. Also, this is not the first time Biblical support for disputable matters has been brought to your attention. So when you're humping that note, it means you remain steadfastly stuck in an incorrect belief even after being presented with sufficient evidence against it. While this makes no statement about your general intelligence, on this one you're coming off as knowledgeable about Christian theology as MoO is coming off as a science expert.

When you're claiming victory because of the dearth of Christians willing to refute your claim that Christians can't agree, understand it's possible no one is even bothering to address it because it doesn't matter anywhere near as much as you think it is.

Matsuki has never shown even a cursory amount of knowledge regarding the bible. There are plenty of other subjects it's obvious he understands well but the bible is not one of them.

The first issue here is that somehow you guys think knowledge of the bible is in anyway a prerequisite to this topic. The bible is not an alternative to scientific theory.Second, let me know when your own religion can agree on what is and isn't literal/true in the bible before you try to claim any advantage regarding "knowledge."

Third, the two of you don't even agree here. Why don't you guys get back to me when you get yourselves on the same page.

 

[matuski]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

 

[matuski]

Biblical 'literalist' Ken Ham says "Bill Nye doesn't really understand science."

In other news: Cade McNown says Peyton Manning doesn't really understand football.

Can't argue with this?But ultimately I still believe this is the real question, the real threat to Christians who take Genesis literally.

Jesus.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Biblical 'literalist' Ken Ham says "Bill Nye doesn't really understand science."

In other news: Cade McNown says Peyton Manning doesn't really understand football.

Can't argue with this?But ultimately I still believe this is the real question, the real threat to Christians who take Genesis literally.

Jesus.

Looks like it even convinced you.

 

[Marvin]

Ferris took his ball and went home.

Ferris wait...

For someone so quick to label others for taking this board too seriously, you sure have followed me to a lot of different threads, talking #### about me and not actually discussing the topic at hand with me. But I'm sure you've got some awesome reasons why I'm incorrect about that.BTW... that "Christians can't agree" note you keep humping is nothing more than a red herring. Christians are neither ordered to agree on everything nor expected to agree on everything. There's even a Bible passage titled "Disputable Matters" that addresses this. Indirectly, there's a pile of Biblical support for endorsing the notion of humans having different ideas, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses, passions, values, and more. The directive is not to all arrive at the same conclusions about everything, but to figure out how we can support each other's different abilities and priorities to help each other out and make the collective stronger than the sum of the individuals. You keep claiming Christians all need to agree with each other, but the actual message is that we all need each other.

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know, yet you haven't seemed to be familiar with this concept or the passages discussing it. While that doesn't necessarily disprove your claim of greater knowledge, it doesn't support it. Also, this is not the first time Biblical support for disputable matters has been brought to your attention. So when you're humping that note, it means you remain steadfastly stuck in an incorrect belief even after being presented with sufficient evidence against it. While this makes no statement about your general intelligence, on this one you're coming off as knowledgeable about Christian theology as MoO is coming off as a science expert.

When you're claiming victory because of the dearth of Christians willing to refute your claim that Christians can't agree, understand it's possible no one is even bothering to address it because it doesn't matter anywhere near as much as you think it is.

Matsuki has never shown even a cursory amount of knowledge regarding the bible. There are plenty of other subjects it's obvious he understands well but the bible is not one of them.

The first issue here is that somehow you guys think knowledge of the bible is in anyway a prerequisite to this topic. The bible is not an alternative to scientific theory.

I don't need to read the LOTR trilogy to know that hobbits aren't real.

 

[shader]

Ferris took his ball and went home.

Ferris wait...

For someone so quick to label others for taking this board too seriously, you sure have followed me to a lot of different threads, talking #### about me and not actually discussing the topic at hand with me. But I'm sure you've got some awesome reasons why I'm incorrect about that.BTW... that "Christians can't agree" note you keep humping is nothing more than a red herring. Christians are neither ordered to agree on everything nor expected to agree on everything. There's even a Bible passage titled "Disputable Matters" that addresses this. Indirectly, there's a pile of Biblical support for endorsing the notion of humans having different ideas, beliefs, strengths, weaknesses, passions, values, and more. The directive is not to all arrive at the same conclusions about everything, but to figure out how we can support each other's different abilities and priorities to help each other out and make the collective stronger than the sum of the individuals. You keep claiming Christians all need to agree with each other, but the actual message is that we all need each other.

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know, yet you haven't seemed to be familiar with this concept or the passages discussing it. While that doesn't necessarily disprove your claim of greater knowledge, it doesn't support it. Also, this is not the first time Biblical support for disputable matters has been brought to your attention. So when you're humping that note, it means you remain steadfastly stuck in an incorrect belief even after being presented with sufficient evidence against it. While this makes no statement about your general intelligence, on this one you're coming off as knowledgeable about Christian theology as MoO is coming off as a science expert.

When you're claiming victory because of the dearth of Christians willing to refute your claim that Christians can't agree, understand it's possible no one is even bothering to address it because it doesn't matter anywhere near as much as you think it is.

Matsuki has never shown even a cursory amount of knowledge regarding the bible. There are plenty of other subjects it's obvious he understands well but the bible is not one of them.

The first issue here is that somehow you guys think knowledge of the bible is in anyway a prerequisite to this topic. The bible is not an alternative to scientific theory.Second, let me know when your own religion can agree on what is and isn't literal/true in the bible before you try to claim any advantage regarding "knowledge."

Third, the two of you don't even agree here. Why don't you guys get back to me when you get yourselves on the same page.

I doubt me and ferris are in the same religion.

 

[matuski]

National Geographic on Whale Evo

 

[Jayrok]

Well, I'm glad to see that you aren't defensive or anything.

I don't have a hidden agenda.

mea culpaJayrok - that was a thoughtful and fair post that did not warrant any of the criticism I heaped upon you in this thread. No shtick. Thanks for sharing a bit about how and why these questions came up for you, and for toughing it out with me even when I made it tough for you.

It may take me a few days before I can put together a response worth reading, but I'd rather wait and and do that than half-### it. You raised some interesting questions, and it's going to take me a bit to figure out how some different thoughts swirling around in my head regarding them will fit together.

No worries, Ferris. I appreciate your opinion and I'm sorry if I have offended you in any posts of the past. I'm interested in your comments on this subject. I've been thinking about it myself lately and I'm not yet sure how I feel about it.

 

[matuski]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

 

[shader]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

Ridiculous statements like this are what annoys people. Just say that you personally don't believe in the bible. That's fine. Millions have been affected by the bible in extremely positive ways. It certainly helps people's intelligence when they followed Jesus teachings and were able to shed drug habits, alcoholism, treat others better, learn to think of others first, etc. (the list could go on and on).

 

[Marvin]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

Ridiculous statements like this are what annoys people. Just say that you personally don't believe in the bible. That's fine. Millions have been affected by the bible in extremely positive ways. It certainly helps people's intelligence when they followed Jesus teachings and were able to shed drug habits, alcoholism, treat others better, learn to think of others first, etc. (the list could go on and on).

Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

 

[matuski]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

Ridiculous statements like this are what annoys people. Just say that you personally don't believe in the bible. That's fine. Millions have been affected by the bible in extremely positive ways. It certainly helps people's intelligence when they followed Jesus teachings and were able to shed drug habits, alcoholism, treat others better, learn to think of others first, etc. (the list could go on and on).

eta - You bring up another scary part of religion, the notion that people depend on someone else to tell them how to be good people.

 

[CrossEyed]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

Ridiculous statements like this are what annoys people. Just say that you personally don't believe in the bible. That's fine. Millions have been affected by the bible in extremely positive ways. It certainly helps people's intelligence when they followed Jesus teachings and were able to shed drug habits, alcoholism, treat others better, learn to think of others first, etc. (the list could go on and on).

eta - You bring up another scary part of religion, the notion that people depend on someone else to tell them how to be good people.

Got kids?

 

[mrip541]

The theory that the universe was created by some sort of magical wizard in the sky who sent his son (or some form of himself) to give us all rules we must live by (recorded in a book filled with factual inaccuracies) or face eternal damnation is just so incredibly ridiculous that I find it frightening that millions of otherwise intelligent people believe it. The idea that whatever omnipotent and all-wise entity created the universe wants you to suffer forever for, say, choosing the wrong sexual partner is simply absurd. To also argue that this guy/girl/spaghetti monster created life in a way that goes against the vast majority of scientific evidence is crazy talk.

 

[matuski]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

Ridiculous statements like this are what annoys people. Just say that you personally don't believe in the bible. That's fine. Millions have been affected by the bible in extremely positive ways. It certainly helps people's intelligence when they followed Jesus teachings and were able to shed drug habits, alcoholism, treat others better, learn to think of others first, etc. (the list could go on and on).

eta - You bring up another scary part of religion, the notion that people depend on someone else to tell them how to be good people.

Got kids?

Fair enough, as long as we all agree the bible is completely unnecessary for such lessons. I'm glad you recognize societal and parental influences now that you have kids.. if I recall you weren't so open to the idea previously. I'll also add that I do see inspiration main value religion can bring to a person (helping people find it in themselves to fight addiction, etc.)... shader seems to have inspiration confused with intelligence.

 

[CrossEyed]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

Ridiculous statements like this are what annoys people. Just say that you personally don't believe in the bible. That's fine. Millions have been affected by the bible in extremely positive ways. It certainly helps people's intelligence when they followed Jesus teachings and were able to shed drug habits, alcoholism, treat others better, learn to think of others first, etc. (the list could go on and on).

eta - You bring up another scary part of religion, the notion that people depend on someone else to tell them how to be good people.

Got kids?

Fair enough, as long as we all agree the bible is completely unnecessary for such lessons. I'm glad you recognize societal and parental influences now that you have kids.. if I recall you weren't so open to the idea previously. I'll also add that I do see inspiration main value religion can bring to a person (helping people find it in themselves to fight addiction, etc.)... shader seems to have inspiration confused with intelligence.

Not sure what you mean by the red quote. I've always recognized the importance of the role of parenting. As for shader's comments, I agree that intelligence was a poor word choice. "Inspiration" would work. I think "wisdom" works even better.

 

[CrossEyed]

The theory that the universe was created by some sort of magical wizard in the sky who sent his son (or some form of himself) to give us all rules we must live by (recorded in a book filled with factual inaccuracies) or face eternal damnation is just so incredibly ridiculous that I find it frightening that millions of otherwise intelligent people believe it. The idea that whatever omnipotent and all-wise entity created the universe wants you to suffer forever for, say, choosing the wrong sexual partner is simply absurd. To also argue that this guy/girl/spaghetti monster created life in a way that goes against the vast majority of scientific evidence is crazy talk.

You don't understand Christianity as well as you think you do.

 

[matuski]

Fair enough, as long as we all agree the bible is completely unnecessary for such lessons. I'm glad you recognize societal and parental influences now that you have kids.. if I recall you weren't so open to the idea previously.

I'll also add that I do see inspiration main value religion can bring to a person (helping people find it in themselves to fight addiction, etc.)... shader seems to have inspiration confused with intelligence.

Not sure what you mean by the red quote. I've always recognized the importance of the role of parenting. As for shader's comments, I agree that intelligence was a poor word choice. "Inspiration" would work. I think "wisdom" works even better.

If I got that wrong, my bad.

 

[Marvin]

The theory that the universe was created by some sort of magical wizard in the sky who sent his son (or some form of himself) to give us all rules we must live by (recorded in a book filled with factual inaccuracies) or face eternal damnation is just so incredibly ridiculous that I find it frightening that millions of otherwise intelligent people believe it. The idea that whatever omnipotent and all-wise entity created the universe wants you to suffer forever for, say, choosing the wrong sexual partner is simply absurd. To also argue that this guy/girl/spaghetti monster created life in a way that goes against the vast majority of scientific evidence is crazy talk.

Now this is just crazy talk.

 

[shader]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

Ridiculous statements like this are what annoys people. Just say that you personally don't believe in the bible. That's fine. Millions have been affected by the bible in extremely positive ways. It certainly helps people's intelligence when they followed Jesus teachings and were able to shed drug habits, alcoholism, treat others better, learn to think of others first, etc. (the list could go on and on).

eta - You bring up another scary part of religion, the notion that people depend on someone else to tell them how to be good people.

That makes zero sense. Most humans have a sort of morality to themselves. I don't think the bible and my religion keeps me from going out and killing people.But the bible does provide a moral code that works wonders if its actually followed. I will fully admit that most who claim to be christians don't follow this moral code. But when followed, it works.

 

[shader]

In the past you've claimed to know more about the Bible than any Christian you know

Sad, mind boggling..... but true. eta - frustrating... I forgot frustrating.

When matuski gets on the short side of an argument, he tends to stop debating..... odd tactics for a guy who is wont to naming himself the smartest guy in the room, but it is what it is.

ive never in my life made any references to being smarter than anyone

Dang. Even when you try to prove me wrong, you prove me right. You can't help but vindicate me.

I see your problem. You equate bible knowledge with being smart. Definitely something that will be hard to get past for you.

If it helps, the only thing knowing the bible might help with is hypocrisy. Certainly doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

eta - been a while since I've had a stalker, no idea when or where but I must have really gotten under your skin.

Ridiculous statements like this are what annoys people. Just say that you personally don't believe in the bible. That's fine. Millions have been affected by the bible in extremely positive ways. It certainly helps people's intelligence when they followed Jesus teachings and were able to shed drug habits, alcoholism, treat others better, learn to think of others first, etc. (the list could go on and on).

Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

Sure they do

 

[shader]

Not sure what you mean by the red quote. I've always recognized the importance of the role of parenting.

As for shader's comments, I agree that intelligence was a poor word choice. "Inspiration" would work. I think "wisdom" works even better.

Wisdom does work better. But I was responding to matsuki's post that the bible doesn't help anyone's intelligence.

A ridiculous statement. Does the bible bolster one's IQ? Probably not, but then does reading Darwin? Of course not.

The word intelligence, as Matsuki was using it, was used in a way to slam the bible believers, as he obviously feels the bible is full of falsehoods and is a book of fables. I personally believe the bible, as I know you do Crosseyed. So if Jesus did live on earth, and the bible is an accurate depiction of his life, than we are more intelligent by reading it.

If Darwin was wrong and there is no such thing as evolution from a single-celled organism to man, than reading The Origin of the Species doesn't make one more intelligent, it makes one dumber.

It all depends on what the truth is.