On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:32:10 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
Danwood <noreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
<pc20j.1977$F87.216@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:33:46 -0500, in alt.talk.creationism
>> Danwood <noreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> <Vtj_i.6243$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.
No, it is not. It's meaningless speculation.
>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.
There is no evidence of 'fine tuning'.
|
