On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:33:46 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Danwood <noreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<Vtj_i.6243$A71.3940@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:11:14 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
>> Danwood <noreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> <XW_Zi.3736$II4.282@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> It isn't because I lack knowledge. The fact is I have a reasonably
good
>>> education: and I am an avid reader. So, It isn't a lack of knowledge,
>>> therefore, it must be because I am a skeptic and I question the
validity
>>> of certain "facts". And I think everyone should be a skeptic.
>>
>> When your supposed skepticism leads you to throw out evidence and
>> replace it with religious dogma, you are no skeptic.
>>
>By definition dogma is a system of tenets or principles prescribed by a
>religious or political institution. A prescribed set of religious or
>political doctrines. So, what do you consider to be my "religious
>dogma"? The point is if I have any religious dogma I arrived at them
>from reading and studing works written by scientist, not some church.
No, you did not. You've made no effort to sup****t your claims using
science.
|
