Jim
And the "also" part was in direct reference to
your previous comments about science....as I said I was refering to and answering
your previous comments.
Besides, essentially I repeated the same thing I first said...just not as wordy...that it was not exact requote of myself is parsing...the
meaning did not really change.
Again--for the
second time, your defiantion of what religion "is" for is debatable in its narrowness---plus
again, its not shared by everyone these days and it was not that long ago that even Christianity would have viewed it quite differently.
If you wish to debate this particular issue then please present your case---simply
repeating ones self ad nausem is not a replacement for reasoned discourse.
"Engineers don't gather the truths of our physical realities" that science does, rather they apply it"
Again, call up your local engeering school and tell them that they are not a "science".......they might take the time to educate you further prior to hanging up on you.
And
again, your applying an overly narrow defination of "science"....plus its fundemntally inaccurate---engineers have very much "gathered truths" of all sorts pertaining to our "physical reality."
"What the point"
Ah, the "point" is that
you introduced concepts and made posits that I proved false...or at the very least poorly thought out and mis-applied....see the above retred of the "truth" discussion.
"you simply take pot shots at any small details"
Says the guy that took a paragraph to try and spin
my rephraseing of my
own statements....a rephrase that changed
nothing in its essential meaning.
"if it was a real debate 99% of your tactics would be useless"
Nope, quite the reverse, don't expect you to believe that of course.......but its true none the less.......see in "real debate" your whole snide thing does not really work.
In "real debate" your assertions without evidence and sloppy reasoning would have doomed you long ago....again, don't expect you to belive me.
" Playing God........Vaildly refered to as such"
Yeah,
except again if your going to apply such a broad defination of "Playing god" then pretty much
any action or in-action for that matter, can be argued as "Playing god".....your defination is so broad that it renders it essentialy useless....outside of the classroom of course.
"Curing infection....which BTW cannot be done by putting alchol on a wound"
Really.....you mean isopropyl alcohol does
not kill certain germs and
isn't widely used as general disinfectant?
And BTW, how is pouring such on a cut to
prevent an infection or
help kill one off not "Playing God" by
your defiantion of it?
Nope, the "objection" was for a specific kind of research....not "life saving" research in general...which is how you framed it...purposely I might add.
"WMDS......have proliferated with great ease compared to life saving research"
A-
Another strike vs science and scientist---the "religious right" ain't out there inventing new ways to kill and maim......its scientists.
If scientists are spending their time on WMD's rather than inventing new ways to save lives......its clearly not the fault of the "religious right."
B-Utterly ignores the very real history of science.......its use for healing and advancement has pretty much
always gone hand in hand with its uses for killing and maiming.
"what an incredable waste of time this was"
For you and me both brother......you and me both.
Although I suppose that depends on if
you learned anything from it.
