Free Lunch wrote:
> 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 studying works written by scientist, not some church.
>
> No, you did not. You've made no effort to sup****t your claims using
> science.
>
You accused me of throwing out evidence and replacing it with religious
dogma. What religious dogma: you didn't say. This you chose to ignore
this and throw up yet another smoke screen. I've pointed to the
anthropic principle which as far as I am concerned, evidence for
acknowledging the hand of some intelligent agency behind the scene. You
disagree, that's fine. But you haven't come up with a better explanation
for the "fine tuned universe", called the "Goldilocks Universe by one
scientist which was discovered by scientist, not some religious
personalities.
Danwood
|
