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 02-17-2013, 09:27   #701
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
I asked what evidence there was for intelligent design, not "what conjecture." You said "I just consider ID about as possible as abiogenesis through natural processes." There is evidence suggesting possible ways abiogenesis might have happened. What evidence suggests possible ways intelligent design might have been the cause of abiogenesis?

No, it isn't "pretty much the same as abiogenesis." There is evidence supporting the possibility of abiogenesis, although there is nothing conclusive yet. What evidence is there supporting intelligent design? There must be SOME, since you "just consider ID about as possible as abiogenesis through natural processes." What evidence leads you to the conclusion those two possibilities are roughly equivalent?
Evidence? You can call it that if you want. It still looks like conjecture and speculation until it is witnessed as far as I'm concerned.

I don't have any other firm belief that I have to support with abiogenesis or ID though.

Lets suppose a bunch of scientists are able to make life in a lab, with a carefully constructed and reproducible experiment, doesn't that prove that life can be made?

Depending on how they accomplish it, it may support the possibility of abiogenesis also.

Quote:

As I pointed out on a different subject, that there are two possibilities doesn't make the possibilities equivalent, particularly when there is some small amount of evidence for one, and none at all for the other.
We just have a different perspective, and different opinions on the subject. Not really a big deal.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:29   #702
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Why quibble? Evolution is more than possible; it is a well-supported fact.
TO-mato, to-MAT-to?

What possible problem could come from us having a slightly different perspective?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:35   #703
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Given that your premise is "atheism is a religion because it's a belief system held to with ardor and faith," and that your belief system of "I don't know what I believe" is held to with ardor and faith, do you concede that makes agnosticism a religion?
You've gotten it wrong yet again, probably on purpose.

I believe that I do not know whether a deity has existed or not. That is markedly different than not knowing what I believe. Keep it real bro.


All this evangelical behavior around here from the self described atheists has been completely missed by you? If fits by definition and in the spirit of the words. It's just my perspective and opinion. What possible harm could there be for me having that perspective and opinion.

I do believe that evangelical atheists exist. They have existed long before WWW existed. Oddly, their presence on the internet seems to be far in excess of how many you encounter IRL.

Why do you think that is?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 12:06   #704
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
That probably would not be helpful, and would be way off topic for the thread. Do you really want to go over that whole discussion again.
Would it be unhelpful because it's off topic, or unhelpful because it would be evidence that you ignore people's stated positions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
First, I honestly never thought that thread would last near that long, and I had only posted in GTRI a few times in several years. IIRC, the question was asked after some fellow brought his evangelical atheist views up in GTPI in a less than polite way.
You act as thought I weren't there.

You're representing that you started that thread because "some fellow brought his evangelical atheist views up in GTPI in a less than polite way".

That is not quite the truth. It may be how you remember it - but it's not.

First, it wasn't GTPI. It was GNG. Although that doesn't really matter, and really, who is going to expect you to remember? Second, while some fellow did in fact say something rude and happen to be atheist, you started that thread not because of that, but because I disagreed with you when you made some blanket claims about atheists in response to that fellow. You then proceeded to start the thread by misrepresenting my position. That's not the act of supporting a casually held position. That's the act of a guy that's so sure of his own position he's not even listening to the person he's talking to.

You may not have expected that thread to last that long - but you argued to the point that it did. That does not evidence a 'casually held position'. Your expectation isn't evidence of the point that you argued from a position of surety - you may well have thought it was so simple everyone but me would agree with you. Your behavior, in taking that thread to that length and how you did so, though, *does* make it appear that you were sure, even then.

You're right in that I don't really want to go over all of that again. I just don't want someone who doesn't know the history to buy your facade of "Oh I've just been getting more and more sure ...". Now they have the chance to go look for themselves, enough said.
__________________
"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 *; 02-17-2013 at 12:14..
void * is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 12:40   #705
OfficerChris
L.A. fanboy
 
OfficerChris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Schnitzelhausen
Posts: 7,899
Send a message via ICQ to OfficerChris
I really hope people who don't believe in the evolution theory will slowly get extinct, don't own guns and never have children. Horrible such people, horrible
__________________
Pinki: "I don't think you want to get wild OC style"
Personal hero: Lawman800

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
OfficerChris is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 13:13   #706
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Would it be unhelpful because it's off topic, or unhelpful because it would be evidence that you ignore people's stated positions?



You act as thought I weren't there.

You're representing that you started that thread because "some fellow brought his evangelical atheist views up in GTPI in a less than polite way".

That is not quite the truth. It may be how you remember it - but it's not.

First, it wasn't GTPI. It was GNG. Although that doesn't really matter, and really, who is going to expect you to remember? Second, while some fellow did in fact say something rude and happen to be atheist, you started that thread not because of that, but because I disagreed with you when you made some blanket claims about atheists in response to that fellow. You then proceeded to start the thread by misrepresenting my position. That's not the act of supporting a casually held position. That's the act of a guy that's so sure of his own position he's not even listening to the person he's talking to.

You may not have expected that thread to last that long - but you argued to the point that it did. That does not evidence a 'casually held position'. Your expectation isn't evidence of the point that you argued from a position of surety - you may well have thought it was so simple everyone but me would agree with you. Your behavior, in taking that thread to that length and how you did so, though, *does* make it appear that you were sure, even then.

You're right in that I don't really want to go over all of that again. I just don't want someone who doesn't know the history to buy your facade of "Oh I've just been getting more and more sure ...". Now they have the chance to go look for themselves, enough said.
You've done a bit of research, I haven't been back to that thread in quite a while except to pull out some quotes. You'll have to forgive me if I have some of the less significant details incorrect.

Well, I promise you that my position is much more firm on atheism being a religion than it was when that thread started. Believe it or not, no big deal either way.

The biggest question left mostly unanswered is why it's so hard to admit, but again, that's a well beaten path that we don't need to go over any more. We just have some significant differences of opinion. I'm cool with that.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-17-2013 at 13:17..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 13:15   #707
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by OfficerChris View Post
I really hope people who don't believe in the evolution theory will slowly get extinct, don't own guns and never have children. Horrible such people, horrible
Yeah, it's a lot better if only people that agree with you survive.......

If your post wasn't meant to be sarcastic (missing smiley??), it's not very tolerant. Whatever happened to live and let live?
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 13:58   #708
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You've done a bit of research
Again, as though I wasn't there when it happened. *shrug*.

Quote:
The biggest question left mostly unanswered is why it's so hard to admit
It's "hard to admit" because they people who you are arguing with don't actually view their position the way that you demand they do. I suspect many of them know the difference between believing with faith and not believing because they don't see sufficient evidence because they've done both and can tell the difference. Of course, I suspect you'll find that "hard to admit".

I know what I felt when I actually believed in God, and I know how I feel now, and I know the difference is that back then I believed stuff just because people told me, or I read it in a book, and I had faith in what those people were saying, and the words in the book - and now I believe stuff in a far more skeptical manner that depends on there actually being evidence for something, before I'll believe it. There's a difference - and that difference is lack of faith, not presence of it for the opposite posit.
__________________
"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 *; 02-17-2013 at 14:07..
void * is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 16:53   #709
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You've gotten it wrong yet again, probably on purpose.
Do you believe deities exist? You either can't or won't answer that question, so either you don't know what you believe, or you think clearly stating what you believe is a bad idea. If someone asked "Do you believe ghosts exist?" would your answer be "Yes/No," or would it be "I believe I dont' know"? Nobody has ever asked you what you believe you know, or what you believe is possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I believe that I do not know whether a deity has existed or not. That is markedly different than not knowing what I believe.
Do you know whether or not you believe deities have existed or do exist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Keep it real bro.
You mean like how you keep it real by answering questions nobody asked while ignoring the questions that were asked? I'll rephrase the question, but I'm guessing you'll dodge it again.

"Given that your premise is 'atheism is a religion because it's a belief system held to with ardor and faith,' and that your belief system of 'I believe I don't know' is held to with ardor and faith, do you concede that makes agnosticism a religion?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
All this evangelical behavior around here from the self described atheists has been completely missed by you?
If by "missed" you mean "people keeps asking CD questions he dooesn't want to answer," then no, I didn't miss that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
If fits by definition and in the spirit of the words.
It fits by equivocation. You're good at that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It's just my perspective and opinion. What possible harm could there be for me having that perspective and opinion.
There's no harm. Nor is there any benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I do believe that evangelical atheists exist. They have existed long before WWW existed. Oddly, their presence on the internet seems to be far in excess of how many you encounter IRL.

Why do you think that is?
Less fear of physical retaliation.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 16:57   #710
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
TO-mato, to-MAT-to?
Nope. You assert roughly equivalent probabilities between intelligent design and evolution. There is abundant evidence for evolution, and none at all for intelligent design. Evolution is a well-documented fact. Intelligent design is an unsupported assertion. There's a difference between facts and unsupported assertions.

I expect you to once again dodge the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
What possible problem could come from us having a slightly different perspective?
What possible problem prevents you answering questions?
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 17:07   #711
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Evidence? You can call it that if you want.
Very magnanimous of you. The question was "What evidence leads you to the conclusion those two possibilities are roughly equivalent?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
It still looks like conjecture and speculation until it is witnessed as far as I'm concerned.
Huh. That sounds like a paraphrase of Ken Ham. Are you familiar with him? He's a creationist with a poor understanding of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I don't have any other firm belief that I have to support with abiogenesis or ID though.
The question was "What evidence leads you to the conclusion those two possibilities are roughly equivalent?" Is it your assertion there is no evidence for either, that both are nothing but conjecture?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Lets suppose a bunch of scientists are able to make life in a lab, with a carefully constructed and reproducible experiment, doesn't that prove that life can be made?

Depending on how they accomplish it, it may support the possibility of abiogenesis also.
The question was "What evidence leads you to the conclusion those two possibilities are roughly equivalent?" Are you unable to answer that question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
We just have a different perspective, and different opinions on the subject. Not really a big deal.
The difference of opinion isn't a big deal, no. It's interesting how you frequently avoid questions, though.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 17:11   #712
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Again, as though I wasn't there when it happened. *shrug*.



It's "hard to admit" because they people who you are arguing with don't actually view their position the way that you demand they do. I suspect many of them know the difference between believing with faith and not believing because they don't see sufficient evidence because they've done both and can tell the difference. Of course, I suspect you'll find that "hard to admit".

I know what I felt when I actually believed in God, and I know how I feel now, and I know the difference is that back then I believed stuff just because people told me, or I read it in a book, and I had faith in what those people were saying, and the words in the book - and now I believe stuff in a far more skeptical manner that depends on there actually being evidence for something, before I'll believe it. There's a difference - and that difference is lack of faith, not presence of it for the opposite posit.
The more specialized your field, the more that you can't get away from the fact that a lot of what we believe about science was told to us by someone else in one way or another. Occasionally, even those guys get stuff wrong.

I hear you. I understand your position. We still disagree, and that's still OK.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 17:15   #713
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
...
...
...

There's no harm. Nor is there any benefit.



Less fear of physical retaliation.
Retaliation? In what way? I'm not for retaliation at all. I really do take a first amendment approach, people have a right to believe the way they want to believe.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 17:18   #714
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Nope. You assert roughly equivalent probabilities between intelligent design and evolution. There is abundant evidence for evolution, and none at all for intelligent design. Evolution is a well-documented fact. Intelligent design is an unsupported assertion. There's a difference between facts and unsupported assertions.

I expect you to once again dodge the point.



What possible problem prevents you answering questions?
Really, try to keep up.

I believe in evolution. I've said that repeatedly.

I give roughly equal probability on whether abiogenesis through natural processes OR ID led to the beginning of life.

See the difference????
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 17:24   #715
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Very magnanimous of you. The question was "What evidence leads you to the conclusion those two possibilities are roughly equivalent?"



Huh. That sounds like a paraphrase of Ken Ham. Are you familiar with him? He's a creationist with a poor understanding of science.



The question was "What evidence leads you to the conclusion those two possibilities are roughly equivalent?" Is it your assertion there is no evidence for either, that both are nothing but conjecture?



The question was "What evidence leads you to the conclusion those two possibilities are roughly equivalent?" Are you unable to answer that question?



The difference of opinion isn't a big deal, no. It's interesting how you frequently avoid questions, though.

I looked at all the evidence, I have listened to both sides, There are very crucial missing pieces in both theories. When one is proven correct, you can come on back with the proof, and convince me. I'll be here for a while, no problem.

I have no problems waiting for either ID or abiogenesis being proven correct. When that happens, I will pick sides, until then, I can wait. I don't have to use either to back up a theistic or atheistic belief system, hence the lack of urgency.

Clear enough? You've been asking the same questions repeatedly...... with all due respect, it's getting a little boring.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 19:28   #716
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The more specialized your field, the more that you can't get away from the fact that a lot of what we believe about science was told to us by someone else in one way or another.
Well, that all depends on how you look at it. Anyone has the option of going and doing research if they so choose.

There's nothing that specialized being discussed on this forum, though. Here it's a matter of basic sticking points - like the fact that the BBT doesn't claim to describe how the universe came into being, the fact that evolutionary theory doesn't claim to describe how life came from non-life, etc. Things where it is in fact quite easy to determine what the theories actually state without even needing to leave the comfort of your own home.

If you disagree, please provide an example where someone has claimed something that requires very specialized knowledge to determine, here in this forum. Then we can examine it and see if it actually meets the criteria you're stating - or if it's actually the case that it's fairly easy to research whatever the particular point is, or if it were evident that the person actually knew what they were talking about.

I mean, I certainly don't know enough to critique someone's research on Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase regulation in the hepatopancreas of Littorina littorea - but then again, I'm not claiming to, either - at most I would claim that there are people who do, and that using the scientific method it'll get worked out eventually (which you can verify by using the scientific method yourself to determine things). But GTRI hardly ever gets that specific.

For things like the e. coli experiment, I've read the paper and actually emailing Professor Lenski to get a point or two clarified, even though I have but a layman's understanding. He was kind enough to actually reply, which I appreciated. I suppose it's possible he just said something or other just because, but that was enough to at least provisionally satisfy me.

For things like the CRU controversy, I went and downloaded the leaked data and looked for myself, rather than merely trusting websites that claimed this-or-that was in what was leaked.

You can do a double-slit experiment with an easy to obtain handheld laser, some paint, microscope slides, and a razor blade - and I have. (the kids had fun with that one, too, although, of course, we weren't throwing a single photon through the slits at a time, just a basic single-slit and double-slit setup with the laser throwing as many photons as it throws).

Do you do likewise?
__________________
"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 *; 02-17-2013 at 20:01..
void * is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 20:28   #717
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I looked at all the evidence, I have listened to both sides, There are very crucial missing pieces in both theories. When one is proven correct, you can come on back with the proof, and convince me. I'll be here for a while, no problem.

I have no problems waiting for either ID or abiogenesis being proven correct. When that happens, I will pick sides, until then, I can wait. I don't have to use either to back up a theistic or atheistic belief system, hence the lack of urgency.

Clear enough? You've been asking the same questions repeatedly...... with all due respect, it's getting a little boring.
I ask the same questions because you keep dodging them; if you'd answer, I'd move on. What evidence have you looked at that supports intelligent design? I assume there is some, since you've given both "theories" (of course, intelligent design isn't actually a theory in the scientific sense, although, of course, creationists insist it is) equal weight, and claim to have looked at all the evidence.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 20:38   #718
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Really, try to keep up.
This might be an example of respect, but it sure looks like standard Cavalry Doc condescension to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I believe in evolution. I've said that repeatedly.
Look at that. You dodged again, exactly as I predicted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I give roughly equal probability on whether abiogenesis through natural processes OR ID led to the beginning of life.
What evidence supports intelligent design? There must be some, since you give both ideas roughly equal probability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
See the difference????
Well, I see the difference between fact and wishful guesses.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 20:44   #719
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Retaliation? In what way? I'm not for retaliation at all. I really do take a first amendment approach, people have a right to believe the way they want to believe.
Really? You want to go through this again?

As just one mundane example, it is common for cars with atheist stickers to be vandalized.

You must have missed these questions:

"Do you know whether or not you believe deities have existed or do exist?"

"Given that your premise is 'atheism is a religion because it's a belief system held to with ardor and faith,' and that your belief system of 'I believe I don't know' is held to with ardor and faith, do you concede that makes agnosticism a religion?"

I apologize for boring you by asking questions you have yet to answer.
ksg0245 is offline  
Old 02-17-2013, 20:44   #720
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Well, that all depends on how you look at it. Anyone has the option of going and doing research if they so choose.

There's nothing that specialized being discussed on this forum, though. Here it's a matter of basic sticking points - like the fact that the BBT doesn't claim to describe how the universe came into being, the fact that evolutionary theory doesn't claim to describe how life came from non-life, etc. Things where it is in fact quite easy to determine what the theories actually state without even needing to leave the comfort of your own home.

If you disagree, please provide an example where someone has claimed something that requires very specialized knowledge to determine, here in this forum. Then we can examine it and see if it actually meets the criteria you're stating - or if it's actually the case that it's fairly easy to research whatever the particular point is, or if it were evident that the person actually knew what they were talking about.

I mean, I certainly don't know enough to critique someone's research on Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase regulation in the hepatopancreas of Littorina littorea - but then again, I'm not claiming to, either - at most I would claim that there are people who do, and that using the scientific method it'll get worked out eventually (which you can verify by using the scientific method yourself to determine things). But GTRI hardly ever gets that specific.

For things like the e. coli experiment, I've read the paper and actually emailing Professor Lenski to get a point or two clarified, even though I have but a layman's understanding. He was kind enough to actually reply, which I appreciated. I suppose it's possible he just said something or other just because, but that was enough to at least provisionally satisfy me.

For things like the CRU controversy, I went and downloaded the leaked data and looked for myself, rather than merely trusting websites that claimed this-or-that was in what was leaked.

You can do a double-slit experiment with an easy to obtain handheld laser, some paint, microscope slides, and a razor blade - and I have. (the kids had fun with that one, too, although, of course, we weren't throwing a single photon through the slits at a time, just a basic single-slit and double-slit setup with the laser throwing as many photons as it throws).

Do you do likewise?
Do you believe in nuclear explosions? Ever gone through the trouble of building a device yourself and detonating it? Probably not. We all believe they exist. I've never seen a nuclear bomb up close and personal, but I wouldn't bet a penny they don't exist. I've at least talked to someone that was working at Oak Ridge TN when they were working on the first two atomic bombs, and a few (more than 5, less that 10) people that were witnesses to nuclear explosions.

From what we have been told, and with a little bit of trust, we can reasonably assume that what we have been told about nuclear weapons is correct, and that they exist.

I believe I know what the symptoms of nerve agent exposure look like. It fits with what I have experienced in other similar scenarios with the sypathetic and parasympathetic nervous system in other patients. I have met people that have been exposed, and their descriptions matched what I have been taught. But I haven't sniffed any VX myself or treat any patients with active symptoms from it.

It is reasonable to believe a lot of what we have been told, as it fits reasonably well with what we have observed to be true ourselves. That requires a bit of faith, but that's not a problem either.

I work in an area of science that relies on many others. Every day. I stay up on the latest news in the field, but cannot attempt every study myself. I have learned to be skeptical of the claims of others though. It's a matter of self preservation almost as much as it is a sincere desire to keep a promise I made a long time ago. Primum non nocere.
Cavalry Doc is offline  

 
  
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 17:20.




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


Users Currently Online: 981
292 Members
689 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31