Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: snex <xens@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:59:14 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 29, 3:51 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 08:22:17 -0700, snex wrote:
On Jul 29, 10:11 am, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:14:07 -0700, snex wrote:
On Jul 28, 5:52 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:36:13 -0700, snex wrote:
[...]
i deliberately put enough thought into my questions such that the
answers can *only* be simple and straight.
You have failed.
no, you and your sidekicks simply choose to be dishonest. there are
only two possible answers to the question "did the virgin birth of
jesus actually happen in actual history?" and none of you have the
balls to give one of them.
Only two possible answers!? Such black-and-white thinking is a bad
habit to get into.
such "black and white thinking" is the way logic and reality just happen
to work. events either happened or they didnt.
Have you been caught in the Tron universe? You sure don't live in the
one I see science applied to.
really? which universe do you live in, where historical events
happened for some people but not others? maybe evolution happened for
you but not for ray martinez. why dont you consider that possibility,
mr flexible thinker?
Garamond already gave a concise and complete answer. Since you did not
see it, I will repeat it here: Such an event as a virgin birth is so
unlikely that it would require a miracle to happen. Beyond that,
science cannot say.
certain people, like francis collins, say that it *did* happen. why do
you fail to criticize them when they say that?
To what end? There are more important things in the world than being
right.
and yet you bother to criticize me for criticizing francis collins.
See? Where did I say anything about learning truths through religion?
people have been asserting that religion is a "way of knowing" or a
"path to truth" for centuries. and you havent disputed it. so you
either agree with them or you are afraid to tell them to stop making
assertions that they cant possibly justify for some reason.
That's your agenda. As you yourself note, it does not come from what I
have said. In the future, perhaps you could simply cut out what I have
said so it does not appear that you are replying to it.
And how can you say that I have not disputed it? Have you missed
everything I have written in other threads over the last twenty years?
Are you unfamiliar with my book which devotes 400 pages to disputing it?
What I dispute is your attitude that every last assertion must be
justified by scientific investigation, and anyone who does not do that
must, at the very least, be labeled stupid. There are some times when
irrationality is justified. There are even more times when it is
appropriate to be rational but still nonscientific. There are even more
times when it is better simply not to worry about it.
and there are times when both science and rationality must be held to
be the gold standard - like when determining who to put in charge of
the NIH.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- References:
- Collins to head NIH?
- From: Perplexed in Peoria
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: snex
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: snex
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: snex
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: snex
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: snex
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: snex
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: Mark Isaak
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: snex
- Re: Collins to head NIH?
- From: Mark Isaak
- Collins to head NIH?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Ad nauseAm, duh!
- Next by Date: Re: Collins to head NIH?
- Previous by thread: Re: Collins to head NIH?
- Next by thread: Re: Collins to head NIH?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading