That's absolutely fantastic - thanks for sharing!

Chris, yeah that was my sig, I just changed it because I didn't want to appear to be a real jerk, especially in the belief thread I was posting in... you know... "Oh, that's what you believe? Oh, I believe....X... I'd rather be rich, than stupid." Lots in here don't know me, and those who might slightly remember me may not remember that I'm a nice guy and may take me wrong. It's good to be back around - hopfully I'll stick around this time?

Great post Chris. Really

Actually I can't believe that I'm the first to do this!.

I have no qualms with the winky, but I tell's ya - nice to read me some Chris Fullmer again. Good to "see" you buddy! and I'll try not to use it on you (except in the above!)

Bruce,
I hope it's okay to do this, I just didn't want to start my own thread. Let me know though, and I will do so tomorrow if you want.. I thought you'd want to see some shots from my weekend near the Colombia Icefield. I didn't have any time to photoshop 'em yet and do some correction and add drama - but it was beautiful!

Tom and Mike, it looks like it's just a matter of perspective on those points:
Mike - at this point, we are looking at philosophy, and we have different perspectives based on our experiences and choices. An interesting note (without being acerbic - I respect you Mike, so please don't take this as insulting) is that you end your post with a statement that you'd rather not push any certain beliefs, but the post itself derides the possibility that a God might exist, and that He may have revealed something to us.

Tom, good to be around - but I don't know what the next little bit holds - I'm vacationing in the next bit and will likely be away from the 'net. Again with the perspective, we don't carry that much of a different definition, and I am not saying that I'd gladly throw the truth away. What I am saying is that I question that which is foisted as truth, when that may actually be debatable. This part of the definition that you mentioned sticks out to me "Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena." I like knowing that an understanding comes out of observation and experimentation. I don't like when theory is borne of conjecture.

Much has been "truth" in the past, and has now become fiction in the present. History repeats and I fully expect that our time is not immune from looking silly in our "knowledge" as any other time in history - I would just rather be skeptical than easily accepting when it comes to what I'm being asked to accept. (I'm fully aware of how funny this may sound to many of you!)

I've been away far too long. I love your model - this may be old for some, but for me, it's like a first time

Looks great - I'm not a fan at all of the SU trees, or perhaps I don't think they look so great next to your wonderful model - but I am just enjoying the lines from here man... thanks.

Mike, I read a book a little while ago called "The Shack". It is an interesting piece of fiction that deals with some hard questions of the protaganist. I mention this book/think it pertenant because the author writes God in the tripartate as God the Father - 60 or 70 year old African-american, Jesus is the 33 year old carpenter dude (natch) and the Holy Spirit is sort of a wispy, hard to see track-suit wearing asian (that's the picture I have in my mind anyways - I can't remember the H.S. description too well) - but I'd say that I agree with the older, maternal lady cooking and enjoying her kids etc.. I think God is described as a man, because of cultural reasons and also because it's a 50/50 kind of thing - but God is clearly not a man, or the old dude with a beard etc.

I think it's reasonable to think that the good that we exibit are 'godly' traits, but I don't really have too much of an answer about your chimp thought - except to say that I don't think that DNA was the original intent - perhaps just the idea of ultimate good, of which we seem to carry on the intent of this, but not the execution.

Well, I'm late to the party, and have not really been active for quite some time now, but I figured in the interest of the conversation at hand, and to get a different opinion being expressed, I'd give my views.

I Do believe in God, and God as creator.
I Don't believe in science, as science is defined as:

1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

(merriam-webster online dictionary - I didn't cherrypick, this is the first one that I came up with - Bold is mine)
I don't believe that science leaves you any room for belief, good science is testable and true.

I think that it is common today that the word science is used correctly and incorrectly and is flexible, but I think that the other problem with this is that the words truth and science are thought of interchangeably. Let me illustrate:

We have used Science to determine that the boiling point of water is 99.97 degrees Celsius at a pressure of 1 atm (thank you wiki!)
Science shows it is true that water boils at 99.97 deg Celsius at 1 atm.
It is true that water boils at 99.97c @1 atm
That sounds all good.

Contrast that to what many people think of science in popular culture when any given newspaper reports on theory as science
Cold Fusion etc. (when it first was brought out in '89) or any given story written about discoveries of an ancient nature.

Boy, I'm not doing a great job here with staying away from topics that will get me labeled an ignorant American bible-belter.. okay, well the idea is mainly that I see Science and Truth interchanged where it isn't necessarily so. I think that there are enough issues and "anomalies" to bring much of "science" into question.

To re-iterate. Science as defined as testable, repeatable, true. I don't believe in, I agree with. Science that relies on conjecture and theory, I may or may not agree with or believe and God - yep, I believe in Him for sure.

I think that should suffice to put myself on a skewer and light a fire underneath my delectable regions!

Who will be the first to dig in!

Very interesting Bruce. I was just in the rockies in Alberta this weekend, and it's amazing how all the stress just melts off when you are sitting in the midst of the majesty of nature. A friend and I spent the better part of 5 hours or so hiking around a small area of a deep canyon and I couldn't tell you how many falls and crevasses we encountered/hovered/photographed.. it was excellent.

About your shot - I like the colors mucho. The pastel effect seems to work in that it gets me looking around at detail - and I like how the background flies apart a bit - it is different having such crisp water, and a "rough" background, but I think this works somehow.

Cheers!

Remus - I added Objectdock and like it quite a bit. Thank you!

I suggest strongly using iGoogle for your home page too - add all your daily websurf links, weather, news, rss feeds etc...