I then scrolled past the obligatory overplayed George Carlin routine to the comment section.. to point out that undoubtedly whatever is in this article.. it’s not worth the read. Most likely some content free content provided for atheists by atheists that contributes nothing but a smear on the author. Juvenile.

It’s very easy: Go to this link to get the detail.

Hm… let’s look at a possible foley:

[Loud, sustained squelching noises are heard...]

…is this really something you’d like to hear me make?!

Nick: Hi Matt, you’ve misinterpreted it.

Not knowing an answer to something does not make that something faulty reasoning. Instead, it’s simply, not knowing something or not knowing the something, at least just yet if at all there’s something to it. Placing faith on something not knowing the answer to that something is what makes that something faulty reasoning.

In your doctor scenario example, the doctors clearly expressed they don’t know why the patient is not responding to the “something” they gave. This something was produced through medical testing. If this “something” let’s say it was a drug, the doctors “know” that it should have worked in normal circumstances. Note: the doctors are not placing faith on the drug. They know from previous repeated tests done on it that it always worked. When a particular drug does not work, then further tests need to be done on the patient, the drug and other relevant factors to identify the real reason why the drug did not work or why the patient did not respond to the drug or what could be other factors involved that made the drug not work.

Only an irresponsible or uninformed or unlicensed or an alternative medicine practitioner or simply a “by the book” doctor or all of the above who can’t think scientifically and ethically, will say such things like, “Well, he/she is not responding to what I gave him/her, so “I’m not sure what “we” can do for them. Their not responding to what we gave them. It’s his/her fault that I can’t “cure” him/her! I’m not God!”

matt the coolist: But I’m here to ask a question to try and understand the science minds of today. First, I have this idea that to view something in science you need to have an objective mind. Is this true? I also have an understanding that when Darwin started his Evolution thoery, he did so bassed on his loss of his daughter. If this is true (and please sent the record straight for me) than how can we look at his work objectively? Certainly, if he went out to prove that there is no God, than he can not na should not be taken so literally.

Nick: On the topic of evolution, I feel it’s more of creationists attempting to establish that evolution is no better than creationism in the sense that it’s also based on faith and not evidence, just like the Big Bang. It’s like saying, “Hey! if I’m wrong, then so are you! You’re nothing better! I choose to have faith in creationism while you choose to have faith in evolutionism. That’s all!” Thinking this way does not help. The right approach to this is research. If you have something more credible than evolution, then go ahead prove it to us through the scientific method. That’s all there is to it. It’s not a matter of who’s better than who. It’s a matter of what method was taken to prove a claim and the best results it produced based on the kind of theory and method used to produce it.

Hummmmm, not knowing an answear to something makes that something faulty reasoning. That’s interesting. Kinda like when you go to a doctor who gives you something for your problem and that something dosn’t solve the problem. What does the doctor say? Will he/she is not responding to what I gave him/her, so “I’m not sure what “we” can do for theme.” Their not responding to what we gave theme. It’s his/her fault that I can’t “cure” him/her! I’m not God! If you have spent any time in a hospital you know exacly what I’m taking about.

But I’m here to ask a question to try and understand the science minds of today. First, I have this idea that to view something in science you need to have an objective mind. Is this true? I also have an understanding that when Darwin started his Evolution thoery, he did so bassed on his loss of his daughter. If this is true (and please sent the record straight for me) than how can we look at his work objectively? Certainly, if he went out to prove that there is no God, than he can not na should not be taken so literally.