GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-10-2013, 16:49   #526
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Nice try.
So you admit they're not given equal weight as alternate treatment. There's a big difference between that and an actual alternative theory of medicine. which is what you're proposing for science classes by including mythology.

So at what point does medicine teach a new treatment? When studies prove its effectiveness? When some people believe something might be effective? When an internet troll thinks on the basis of nothing whatsoever that its about a 50/50 chance compared to treatments that actually have been tested?

Randy
Nice left turn. It's probably not a good idea to apply one strategy to everything. Different approaches are necessary for different situations. Whether the universe and life was created is an unknown detail about something that happened long before your birth, even before the first vertebrate .


I know you are likely being obtuse, but for the others, I've been very clear about the detail that should be included in a science class, just an admission that it is unknown whether life was designed or just occurred due to a natural process. Your religious faith and the desire to suppress this little inconvenient truth is clouding your ability to rationally present a coherent argument. The straw man that I desire a creation myth taught in science class is as dishonest as it is impotent.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-10-2013 at 16:51..
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 17:21   #527
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Nice left turn. It's probably not a good idea to apply one strategy to everything. Different approaches are necessary for different situations. Whether the universe and life was created is an unknown detail about something that happened long before your birth, even before the first vertebrate .
Nice deflection. Too bad you failed. Again. Pay attention, have a trusted friend explain the point if you are unable to grasp it. Why doesn't medical training teach you how to do the herbal treatments that patient had to go to Mexico to obtain? Why is your training so inferior it doesn't cover that? Answer: Because medical training, like science is based on evidence, not mythology, not baseless speculation, not ancient folklore.

Quote:
I know you are likely being obtuse, but for the others, I've been very clear about the detail that should be included in a science class, just an admission that it is unknown whether life was designed or just occurred due to a natural process. Your religious faith and the desire to suppress this little inconvenient truth is clouding your ability to rationally present a coherent argument. The straw man that I desire a creation myth taught in science class is as dishonest as it is impotent.
How much time should the science class devote to telling students science doesn't know if Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exist or not?

You are the one being obtuse. Apparently you did not look up the difference between science and "what some people believe" as i suggested. Either that or you're the one being obtuse.

Evidence gains admittance to science class curricula. "Some people believe" gets you a consolation prize instead. Where's the evidence of a designer?


Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 17:29..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 18:33   #528
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Intimidate? Where did you get the idea I want to intimidate you? How would one even go about intimidating someone on an Internet forum?
Don't ask questions in which your too sensitive to handle the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
His statement was very clear, and incorrect. The doctrine is as stated in the definition, that's all.
I'm too dumb to understand. Do me a solid and explain it to me. What is the doctrine of atheism?

Last edited by juggy4711; 02-10-2013 at 18:35.. Reason: format
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 19:39   #529
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Nice deflection. Too bad you failed. Again. Pay attention, have a trusted friend explain the point if you are unable to grasp it. Why doesn't medical training teach you how to do the herbal treatments that patient had to go to Mexico to obtain? Why is your training so inferior it doesn't cover that? Answer: Because medical training, like science is based on evidence, not mythology, not baseless speculation, not ancient folklore.


How much time should the science class devote to telling students science doesn't know if Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster exist or not?

You are the one being obtuse. Apparently you did not look up the difference between science and "what some people believe" as i suggested. Either that or you're the one being obtuse.

Evidence gains admittance to science class curricula. "Some people believe" gets you a consolation prize instead. Where's the evidence of a designer?


Randy
It would take me too long to explain how to prescribe, but yes, even we recommend herbals. Saw palmetto and milk thistle are some common ones. Studies show they may be helpful, and are not harmful. There are way too many herbals to keep track if them all, micromedix is a good resource to check for drug to herbal interactions.

Look up empiric treatment and trials. It's complex. Not to brag, but I filled prescriptions for 10 years before I started prescribing them 17 years ago. The points you are trying to make are grossly off base. That's why they call it "practicing". It's as much an art as a science. Not every patient reacts the same way to the same medication. You have to be prepared for one of three main possibilities. The patient gets better, the patient gets worse, or they stay the same, or a combination of 2 to 3 of the previous. Medicines that can help one issue, can cause other issues worse or cause a new problem.

I get the final point you are looking for, an excuse to exclude a piece of information because you don't agree with it.

So we disagree, nothing new there.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 19:49   #530
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
Don't ask questions in which your too sensitive to handle the answer.



I'm too dumb to understand. Do me a solid and explain it to me. What is the doctrine of atheism?
Do you think that a person that truly believes there is no deity, does not experience influence on other decisions based on that fundamental belief?

Think about it from the opposite point of view. Do you think that a person that truly believes that a deity does exist does not experience influence on other decisions based on that findamental belief?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 21:37   #531
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It would take me too long to explain how to prescribe, but yes, even we recommend herbals. Saw palmetto and milk thistle are some common ones. Studies show they may be helpful, and are not harmful. There are way too many herbals to keep track if them all, micromedix is a good resource to check for drug to herbal interactions.
There's that word.... STUDIES. So there's EVIDENCE that those work. Again you dodge the point. Why DON'T you use the stuff that patient went to Mexico for? Patients believe it, isn't that enough? NO it is not enough. EVIDENCE. Look it up if the word confuses you.

Quote:
So we disagree, nothing new there.
No, you're avoiding the point in an effort to deflect and try to save face.

So yes, nothing new there.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 21:38..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 22:02   #532
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
There's that word.... STUDIES. So there's EVIDENCE that those work. Again you dodge the point. Why DON'T you use the stuff that patient went to Mexico for? Patients believe it, isn't that enough? NO it is not enough. EVIDENCE. Look it up if the word confuses you.


No, you're avoiding the point in an effort to deflect and try to save face.

So yes, nothing new there.

Randy

You're funny. You really don't understand how it works, go get a medical degree, practice for a decade or so, then come on back and try to make your point.

It's all about you only wanting your unproven belief exclusively taught due to your own bias. There's nothing honorable about hiding what is still unknown from children to push your own doctrinal beliefs.

Even arguing for indoctrination over honesty is so unscientific.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 22:25   #533
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You're funny. You really don't understand how it works, go get a medical degree, practice for a decade or so, then come on back and try to make your point.

It's all about you only wanting your unproven belief exclusively taught due to your own bias. There's nothing honorable about hiding what is still unknown from children to push your own doctrinal beliefs.

Even arguing for indoctrination over honesty is so unscientific.
Yeah, what am I thinking, having science taught in science class.

you're the only one that wants unproven stuff added to science classes. You're no stranger to dishonor. Can't answer a simple question, always evading.

Why isn't the stuff your patient sought in Mexico taught as a treatment in US med schools? Why don't med schools teach you how to do faith healing? People believe that too.

If you were honest, or honorable, you'd be able to answer that truthfully. Pretty simple answer. Pretty simple concept. Because it's not medicine. Doesn't belong in medical classes. Anymore than numerology belongs in math classes, or alchemy in chemistry class. Or unsupported mythology in science class.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 22:38..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 22:47   #534
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Yeah, what am I thinking, having science taught in science class.

...
Scientists can admit what they don't know.

Religious fanatics, not so much.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 23:02   #535
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Scientists can admit what they don't know.

Religious fanatics, not so much.
Trolls seem to have a problem admitting when they're wrong.

But they are adept at avoiding simple questions that expose them.

Science classes should cover what they do know. Do you really feel kids are cheated in math classes lacking numerology references? Or in chemistry classes lacking alchemy?

Of course not. You're just trolling again. You aren't that stupid. Dishonest? Of course. In spades.

Honor comes from admitting when you're wrong instead of hiding.

How many times have you employed your faith healing skills you learned in med school classes again? Oh, right, that's the part you keep avoiding. The part that exposes the sham that you are. That's why you're desperately trying to avoid it. Hard to believe they don't teach you guys faith healing in med school. If they were thorough, they'd teach the controversy, right? That's your position, isn't it?

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 23:13..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 23:14   #536
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Trolls seem to have a problem admitting when they're wrong.

....


....
Projection happens.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 23:17   #537
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Projection happens.
So does denial.

I'm not the one desperately avoiding the questions. That makes you the troll, bud. Obvious troll is obvious. Sorry to burst your bubble. Of course you're not disappointed, it's all part of troll etiquette to pretend otherwise while wallowing in dishonorable trollishness.

Why aren't you taught faith healing in med school? Why don't they teach you in med school that there may be evil spirits causing some diseases? Doesn't that belong in med school? Why not? Why does that line of questions frighten you so?

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 23:33..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 23:29   #538
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
So ...


Bias on parade.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-10-2013, 23:36   #539
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post


Bias on parade.
Why doesn't med school teach you that some diseases may be caused by evil spirits? Just point out what medicine does not know. Wouldn't take long to include it. What harm would it do? Is medicine biased against the supernatural?

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 23:42..
steveksux is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 02:21   #540
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 19,627


Religious Issues



doc·trine noun \ˈdäk-trən\

Definition of DOCTRINE

1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c : a principle of law established through past decisions
d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
e : a military principle or set of strategies
__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein

Last edited by Blast; 02-11-2013 at 02:25..
Blast is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 04:49   #541
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Why doesn't med school teach you that some diseases may be caused by evil spirits? Just point out what medicine does not know. Wouldn't take long to include it. What harm would it do? Is medicine biased against the supernatural?

Randy
Steve, it's not working. I do not believe in the supernatural, as has been explained repeatedly. Your mix between straw man, Argumentum ad absurdum and just plain ignorance of how the practice of medicine works is frankly embarrasing, for you. The point you have been trying to make is not a point.

Your opinion is that all opinions other than yours, even if there are more than one possible truth, should be excluded. I'm not a fan of biased indoctrination in education But I do thank you for pointing out. An aspect of atheist doctrine, juggy's been looking for it, and feeding you enough rope has allowed you to illustrated that quite well. Thanks for the assist.

The first amendment precludes the nation from establishing a State religion, that includes yours.

BTW, do you think that schools should teach that abortion is wrong, drug use is bad and should be illegal, a strong proactive military is necessary for the nations survival and common sense gun control includes banning magazines that hold more that 4 rounds WHILE excluding all other sides of the debate?

What other opinions should be excluded from school?
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 07:08   #542
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
Religious Issues



doc·trine noun \ˈdäk-trən\

Definition of DOCTRINE

1
archaic : teaching, instruction
2
a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c : a principle of law established through past decisions
d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
e : a military principle or set of strategies
I like how you didn't highlight Archaic or Dogma... both of those apply to religion.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 07:12   #543
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I like how you didn't highlight Archaic or Dogma... both of those apply to religion.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 07:25   #544
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
See post 504.
Again, you are trapped within your own misunderstanding of the debate. We aren't dealing with opinions... we are dealing with what is known.

What is known about the process of Abiogenesis is a great deal. What is known about creationism is nothing.

Now anyone that says Abiogenesis is, as a matter of fact, how life began on this planet is giving their opinion. Is there someone on this board that is making that claim?

Along those lines anyone saying Creationsim is, as a matter of fact, how life began on this planet is also giving their opinion. Is there someone on this board making that claim?

My statement has been simply one is more probable than the other given the amount of evidence to support it and the lack thereof for the other. I have asked you how you can give 50/50 credence to both when one has so much evidence supporting it and the other doesn't and you're answer has been that you aren't convinced by either. Which wasn't the question. 50/50 credence to both would seem to be a stance of ignorance of the evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the question. Let me rephrase it. Do you think Abiogenesis is just as probable as Creationism? If so why when there is much evidence to support that Abiogenesis can happen and there is nothing to support that there ever was or is a creator. Couple that with the fact that most of what has been attributed to a creator in nature we have learned for a fact happened without one. Why?

Let me ask you this also. If there were a creator... do you think that creator had a creator? Or was that creator without a beginning and just always was?
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 07:32   #545
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
Again, you are trapped within your own misunderstanding of the debate. We aren't dealing with opinions... we are dealing with what is known.

What is known about the process of Abiogenesis is a great deal. What is known about creationism is nothing.

Now anyone that says Abiogenesis is, as a matter of fact, how life began on this planet is giving their opinion. Is there someone on this board that is making that claim?

Along those lines anyone saying Creationsim is, as a matter of fact, how life began on this planet is also giving their opinion. Is there someone on this board making that claim?

My statement has been simply one is more probable than the other given the amount of evidence to support it and the lack thereof for the other. I have asked you how you can give 50/50 credence to both when one has so much evidence supporting it and the other doesn't and you're answer has been that you aren't convinced by either. Which wasn't the question. 50/50 credence to both would seem to be a stance of ignorance of the evidence. Perhaps you don't understand the question. Let me rephrase it. Do you think Abiogenesis is just as probable as Creationism? If so why when there is much evidence to support that Abiogenesis can happen and there is nothing to support that there ever was or is a creator. Couple that with the fact that most of what has been attributed to a creator in nature we have learned for a fact happened without one. Why?

Let me ask you this also. If there were a creator... do you think that creator had a creator? Or was that creator without a beginning and just always was?
I never intended to imply you weren't a true believer.

Have you not seen that I don't have any assumptions about a designer/creator that may or may not have existed, including whether or not he/she/it is omnipresent.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 08:48   #546
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,343


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Have you not seen that I don't have any assumptions about a designer/creator that may or may not have existed, including whether or not he/she/it is omnipresent.
All anyone ever sees is you avoiding anwering any and all direct questions.

However strong or weak you find it, there is empirical evidence in support of the theories of cosmic inflation, Lambda-CDM, abiogenesis and evolution. There is no evidence in support of creationism and intelligent design.

The current set of scientific theories has evidence supporting them. They may not be exactly right (yet), but they are supported by empirical observation. The opposing set of archaic religious myths has no evidence supporting it at all. None, zero, zip.

How can you possibly rationalize weighing these competing explanations as equally plausible? Certainly, you must be able to form an opinion based on the comparitive validitiy of available evidence. If not, how do you even manage to function in soceity on a daily basis as we all must do this on a daily basis.
__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 08:51   #547
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
void, I am going by the definition I posted. Which is the official standard. I didn't make the definition up. It seems you are trying to define atheism the way you want it to be, not how it is actually defined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ->

Quote:
Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Quote:
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
As I said: atheism is whether or not you believe. Agnosticism is whether or not you hold you can prove (in the sense of a mathematical proof - if you can prove something, you know it. If it's not provable, it's unknowable).

The terms I used, as I used them, were used within the context of accepted and valid definitions of both the terms atheism and agnosticism.

If you don't want to recognize that, for whatever reason, or you want to hold people to other definitions that they have not claimed to use and have specifically disclaimed using, how do you expect to have a sane conversation about it?

I mean, from my perspective - I self identify as atheist - in the specific sense of, I do not believe. I am also an agnostic, in the specific sense of, I do not think it is a provable posit. Many other self-described atheists also frame it in those terms, they are commonly used that way, and it is *very* clear what is meant.

So why do you want to claim that I'm not using valid definitions when I am? It just gets in the way.

Or, it allows you to bucket people up and label them all one way in a manner that is not necessarily actually true, given that many self-identified atheists do not frame it in those terms. Perhaps the ability to do so is why you want to claim that you used an "official" (official how? Dictionaries document usage, they do not authoritatively mandate meaning) definition?
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-11-2013 at 09:02..
void * is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:08   #548
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I never intended to imply you weren't a true believer.

Have you not seen that I don't have any assumptions about a designer/creator that may or may not have existed, including whether or not he/she/it is omnipresent.
That doesn't answer any of my questions and is an attempt to change the nature of what we are discussing.

I will ask again. When there is much evidence to support that Abiogenesis can happen and none whatsoever to support creationism. Why is it that you give both 50/50 credence? Does not one seem more probable?

No one is claiming to disprove a deity. No one seems to be claiming that abiogenesis is factually the beginnings of life on Earth only the theory with the most supporting evidence when compared to creationism. And no one is claiming to have it all figured out.

I hope this clears up your confusion so that perhaps you can address the questions.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:12   #549
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
All anyone ever sees is you avoiding anwering any and all direct questions.

However strong or weak you find it, there is empirical evidence in support of the theories of cosmic inflation, Lambda-CDM, abiogenesis and evolution. There is no evidence in support of creationism and intelligent design.

The current set of scientific theories has evidence supporting them. They may not be exactly right (yet), but they are supported by empirical observation. The opposing set of archaic religious myths has no evidence supporting it at all. None, zero, zip.

How can you possibly rationalize weighing these competing explanations as equally plausible? Certainly, you must be able to form an opinion based on the comparitive validitiy of available evidence. If not, how do you even manage to function in soceity on a daily basis as we all must do this on a daily basis.
It was made or just occurred. Those are the two most likely scenarios. I'm just not so sure as to whether or not a deity has ever existed to bias my opinion one way or the other. Was life made? Theists answer yes, atheists answer no, I answer maybe.

Try not to confuse my not submitting to your beliefs as not answering directly what my opinion is. Whether or not life was made hundreds of millions of years ago has very little impact on decisions I make on a daily basis.

Do you make all of your decisions every day based on your belief in abiogenesis? Is that the only way you can function?

That wouldn't make a lot of sense.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:17   #550
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,164


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
That doesn't answer any of my questions and is an attempt to change the nature of what we are discussing.

I will ask again. When there is much evidence to support that Abiogenesis can happen and none whatsoever to support creationism. Why is it that you give both 50/50 credence? Does not one seem more probable?

No one is claiming to disprove a deity. No one seems to be claiming that abiogenesis is factually the beginnings of life on Earth only the theory with the most supporting evidence when compared to creationism. And no one is claiming to have it all figured out.

I hope this clears up your confusion so that perhaps you can address the questions.
Your devout atheism biases your opinion on the possibility that intelligent design is possible. I'm just not encumbered in that way with an inflexible bias.

I've looked at the evidence, heard arguments from both sides, neither was convincing. That's about all there is to it.
Cavalry Doc is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:31.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 884
319 Members
565 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42