I Still Think I'm Right

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

The research on cancer is still ongoing. Of course there will be results that will contradict common knowledge. That is science. It evolves. I will still eat red meat, I will still eat hot dog and I will still eat bacon. If you have paid attention to nutrition, your diet would consist of variety of food. I see red meat similar to wine, it is good in moderation but you don't eat and drink them too much. 

 

Science is not looking for 100% correct answer. Science is about observation and trying to answer the why question. Yes, science evolves. The age of the earth is not definitive right now because the technology to calculate it is becoming better. However, science is not going to come up with the age of earth less than 100,000 years because that figure contradicts thousands of findings across all science disciplines.

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

 

 

StillLooking,

 

I've highlighted a key word in your reply to End3.

 

Rather than being unwilling to debate science, I contend that he lacks the required (insert key word here) to learn how science works.

 

Which leads him to take science out of context thru lack of understanding.

 

If he could be bothered to understand it he wouldn't take it out of context.

 

Horse shit BAA. This is hilarious.....I read hers, wrote a response and then looked at your post here. Remember your posts are hidden to me as I have you on ignore. I chose to read this one only to find proof of what I just wagered to her.

 

Someone pay me my money....

 

It's a gift people, I'll be here all week.

 

 

Then take me off ignore and be better informed of what goes on here.

[StillLooking]

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

That's not my point. Any time I have used science to demonstrate the potential language of the Bible, I get met with consternation. A lot of neat similarities to science and the Bible, but NOOOOO, science is facts, science is PROOF! Or alternatively, you END3 do not know science, you can't possibly, blah blah blah.

 

I could give you several examples at will SL, but wagering you 1000 bucks that they will immediately be met with, that's not valid comparison, that's not science, you can't do that, blah blah. Let me know.

 

 

Science uses EVIDENCE. You never show EVIDENCE linking science and your religious belief. You have used your own experience that cannot be replicated, which is not science. Thus, it is not valid.

 

If I am not mistaken we discussed this already. Our discussion delved into you stating everything was subjective and we couldn't be objective in real life. My god, you haven't learn at all and dig your heel in.

[StillLooking]

Moses vs. Inductively Coupled Plasma

Jesus as "The Internal Standard"

The stick and reverse osmosis.

The properties of water.

 

And on and on and on....

 

Crap, I forgot, I don't do science. Sorry BAA, my mistake, I'm lacking context somehow.

Let us take the first example. We discussed this already last year. It is only you seeing the plasma as Moses' face. Can you please supply other people seeing Moses in the plasma? How do you determine it was Moses' that you saw? What are your parameters?

 

What does the internal standard for calibration have to do with Jesus? Where do you see Jesus' image this time? Can you please supply other researchers backing you up?

 

What does reverse osmosis and properties of water have to do with God? Please elaborate.

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

The research on cancer is still ongoing. Of course there will be results that will contradict common knowledge. That is science. It evolves. I will still eat red meat, I will still eat hot dog and I will still eat bacon. If you have paid attention to nutrition, your diet would consist of variety of food. I see red meat similar to wine, it is good in moderation but you don't eat and drink them too much. 

 

Science is not looking for 100% correct answer. Science is about observation and trying to answer the why question. Yes, science evolves. The age of the earth is not definitive right now because the technology to calculate it is becoming better. However, science is not going to come up with the age of earth less than 100,000 years because that figure contradicts thousands of findings across all science disciplines.

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

 

 

StillLooking,

 

I've highlighted a key word in your reply to End3.

 

Rather than being unwilling to debate science, I contend that he lacks the required (insert key word here) to learn how science works.

 

Which leads him to take science out of context thru lack of understanding.

 

If he could be bothered to understand it he wouldn't take it out of context.

 

This is very frustrating. He didn't even bother educating himself further. You are right, he lacks the discipline to learn science.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

The research on cancer is still ongoing. Of course there will be results that will contradict common knowledge. That is science. It evolves. I will still eat red meat, I will still eat hot dog and I will still eat bacon. If you have paid attention to nutrition, your diet would consist of variety of food. I see red meat similar to wine, it is good in moderation but you don't eat and drink them too much. 

 

Science is not looking for 100% correct answer. Science is about observation and trying to answer the why question. Yes, science evolves. The age of the earth is not definitive right now because the technology to calculate it is becoming better. However, science is not going to come up with the age of earth less than 100,000 years because that figure contradicts thousands of findings across all science disciplines.

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

 

 

StillLooking,

 

I've highlighted a key word in your reply to End3.

 

Rather than being unwilling to debate science, I contend that he lacks the required (insert key word here) to learn how science works.

 

Which leads him to take science out of context thru lack of understanding.

 

If he could be bothered to understand it he wouldn't take it out of context.

 

This is very frustrating. He didn't even bother educating himself further. You are right, he lacks the discipline to learn science.

 

 

Yep.

 

If you look back thru many, many threads SL, a common denominator for his contributions on almost any subject is his stock phrase, "...it seems to me" ...or some variation on that.

 

Because of his all-consuming, death-grip fixation with subjectivity, the only way he can ever look at anything is subjectively.

 

Which means he won't recognize any human standard as objective or valid or meaningful for him.

 

Not the rules and regs of science.  Not the rules and regs of language.  Nor those of logic or logical argument, inference or deduction.  Nor those of evidence and proof.

 

None.  Nada.   Zip.

 

[Guest end3]

 

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

That's not my point. Any time I have used science to demonstrate the potential language of the Bible, I get met with consternation. A lot of neat similarities to science and the Bible, but NOOOOO, science is facts, science is PROOF! Or alternatively, you END3 do not know science, you can't possibly, blah blah blah.

 

I could give you several examples at will SL, but wagering you 1000 bucks that they will immediately be met with, that's not valid comparison, that's not science, you can't do that, blah blah. Let me know.

 

 

Science uses EVIDENCE. You never show EVIDENCE linking science and your religious belief. You have used your own experience that cannot be replicated, which is not science. Thus, it is not valid.

 

If I am not mistaken we discussed this already. Our discussion delved into you stating everything was subjective and we couldn't be objective in real life. My god, you haven't learn at all and dig your heel in.

 

Please don't get on some science horse. What I am trying to describe is conflation, as you like to say, the mixing of IDEAS, between what is written in the Bible and science. One, you don't understand the principles of Inductively Coupled Plasma techniques or you would be making the errant statements you are making in the next post. Two, it's not "seeing" Moses face in the plasma. YOU, SL are the one that doesn't understand and rants as if you do. What I am doing is making a comparison Moses being in the presence of God, making this analogous to a sample being introduced into the plasma, and the resulting physical changes.

[Guest end3]

 

Moses vs. Inductively Coupled Plasma

Jesus as "The Internal Standard"

The stick and reverse osmosis.

The properties of water.

 

And on and on and on....

 

Crap, I forgot, I don't do science. Sorry BAA, my mistake, I'm lacking context somehow.

Let us take the first example. We discussed this already last year. It is only you seeing the plasma as Moses' face. Can you please supply other people seeing Moses in the plasma? How do you determine it was Moses' that you saw? What are your parameters?

 

What does the internal standard for calibration have to do with Jesus? Where do you see Jesus' image this time? Can you please supply other researchers backing you up?

 

What does reverse osmosis and properties of water have to do with God? Please elaborate.

 

Ma'am, if you don't understand the first one, you are likely not to understand the others and it take a bit of writing to accurately describe....so I'm not going to waste my time.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

The research on cancer is still ongoing. Of course there will be results that will contradict common knowledge. That is science. It evolves. I will still eat red meat, I will still eat hot dog and I will still eat bacon. If you have paid attention to nutrition, your diet would consist of variety of food. I see red meat similar to wine, it is good in moderation but you don't eat and drink them too much. 

 

Science is not looking for 100% correct answer. Science is about observation and trying to answer the why question. Yes, science evolves. The age of the earth is not definitive right now because the technology to calculate it is becoming better. However, science is not going to come up with the age of earth less than 100,000 years because that figure contradicts thousands of findings across all science disciplines.

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

 

 

StillLooking,

 

I've highlighted a key word in your reply to End3.

 

Rather than being unwilling to debate science, I contend that he lacks the required (insert key word here) to learn how science works.

 

Which leads him to take science out of context thru lack of understanding.

 

If he could be bothered to understand it he wouldn't take it out of context.

 

This is very frustrating. He didn't even bother educating himself further. You are right, he lacks the discipline to learn science.

 

See above responses.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

What, didn't they recently change the estimated age of the earth by 3 to 400,000,000 years?....on a recent finding?

 

And I didn't bother to read the guys article. The point was that there are people that mix the ideas of math and God.

 

And SL is wrong, a discipline wouldn't be a discipline without the effort. She may make it a mental discipline, but many make it more than that.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, I have been busy. End3, I am not here to discuss philosophy, that is not my cup of tea. I am here to debate science with you. Honestly, what the heck are you talking about mental discipline. I am talking about science, about knowledge, and it doesn't have things to do with what you think as disciplining yourself not to sin, for example.

 

I am not going to ask further question when someone already replied you. Would you care reply sdelsoray's post?

 

I don't wish to debate the science aspect of this SL. I personally don't believe science is definitive in many ways, so I hold room for other opinions. Just like the ongoing red meat discussion.....one day science says it's bad, next it's ok, and now it's bad again. Think science just changed the age of the earth the other day by 400,000,000 years. This seems significant in my mind. Thanks.

 

 

The research on cancer is still ongoing. Of course there will be results that will contradict common knowledge. That is science. It evolves. I will still eat red meat, I will still eat hot dog and I will still eat bacon. If you have paid attention to nutrition, your diet would consist of variety of food. I see red meat similar to wine, it is good in moderation but you don't eat and drink them too much. 

 

Science is not looking for 100% correct answer. Science is about observation and trying to answer the why question. Yes, science evolves. The age of the earth is not definitive right now because the technology to calculate it is becoming better. However, science is not going to come up with the age of earth less than 100,000 years because that figure contradicts thousands of findings across all science disciplines.

 

OK I get it. You are not willing to debate science. So, please refrain taking science out of context to support your religious belief.

 

 

StillLooking,

 

I've highlighted a key word in your reply to End3.

 

Rather than being unwilling to debate science, I contend that he lacks the required (insert key word here) to learn how science works.

 

Which leads him to take science out of context thru lack of understanding.

 

If he could be bothered to understand it he wouldn't take it out of context.

 

This is very frustrating. He didn't even bother educating himself further. You are right, he lacks the discipline to learn science.

 

 

Yep.

 

If you look back thru many, many threads SL, a common denominator for his contributions on almost any subject is his stock phrase, "...it seems to me" ...or some variation on that.

 

Because of his all-consuming, death-grip fixation with subjectivity, the only way he can ever look at anything is subjectively.

 

Which means he won't recognize any human standard as objective or valid or meaningful for him.

 

Not the rules and regs of science.  Not the rules and regs of language.  Nor those of logic or logical argument, inference or deduction.  Nor those of evidence and proof.

 

None.  Nada.   Zip.

 

 

Both of you go read up on ICP and we will discuss if you would like.

 

I am making COMPARISONS of stories in the Bible to ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES....nothing more.

[StillLooking]

 

Please don't get on some science horse. What I am trying to describe is conflation, as you like to say, the mixing of IDEAS, between what is written in the Bible and science. One, you don't understand the principles of Inductively Coupled Plasma techniques or you would be making the errant statements you are making in the next post. Two, it's not "seeing" Moses face in the plasma. YOU, SL are the one that doesn't understand and rants as if you do. What I am doing is making a comparison Moses being in the presence of God, making this analogous to a sample being introduced into the plasma, and the resulting physical changes.

 

 

Okay, I'll play. Let's mix some ideas from different disciplines. Rather than invent a new one, let's take one that is already out there. Vaccine causes autism. Do you think this is a valid idea to be discussed in medical communities?

[hereticzero]

We are much more forgiving of ourselves than others because we know ourselves. If we took the time to know others as well as we know ourselves, then we might find a little more grace for each other. Jesus says he would like our relationships to be analogous to his and God's.....which is eternal life.

 

Double dog dare you atheist types to refute this.

So what? Are you claiming only your God/Jesus is forgiving? Forgiveness is a Universal Golden Rule of cooperation. Not everything is a betrayal. Not everything demands blood for blood or an eye for an eye. Forgiveness is not deserving in every occasion. 

[Guest end3]

 

Please don't get on some science horse. What I am trying to describe is conflation, as you like to say, the mixing of IDEAS, between what is written in the Bible and science. One, you don't understand the principles of Inductively Coupled Plasma techniques or you would be making the errant statements you are making in the next post. Two, it's not "seeing" Moses face in the plasma. YOU, SL are the one that doesn't understand and rants as if you do. What I am doing is making a comparison Moses being in the presence of God, making this analogous to a sample being introduced into the plasma, and the resulting physical changes.

 

Okay, I'll play. Let's mix some ideas from different disciplines. Rather than invent a new one, let's take one that is already out there. Vaccine causes autism. Do you think this is a valid idea to be discussed in medical communities?

 

Certainly

[Guest end3]

 

We are much more forgiving of ourselves than others because we know ourselves. If we took the time to know others as well as we know ourselves, then we might find a little more grace for each other. Jesus says he would like our relationships to be analogous to his and God's.....which is eternal life.

 

Double dog dare you atheist types to refute this.

So what? Are you claiming only your God/Jesus is forgiving? Forgiveness is a Universal Golden Rule of cooperation. Not everything is a betrayal. Not everything demands blood for blood or an eye for an eye. Forgiveness is not deserving in every occasion.

 

Don't know what you're after HZ...I agree pretty much with everything you said.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Both of you go read up on ICP and we will discuss if you would like.

 

I am making COMPARISONS of stories in the Bible to ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES....nothing more.

 

 

There are no comparisons to be made, End.

The remit of science is to investigate ONLY the natural universe and to say NOTHING about the supernatural - ruling out any meaningful comparison between the realm of the natural (science) and the realm of the supernatural (religion).  By making that comparison this shows that you are not disciplined enough to understand and/or abide by the governing rules and regs of science.  So if you do go your own way and do break the rules and do find meaning where none is allowed - then you are confirming what I said to StillLooking about you.  You are making my argument about you, for me.  

 

You lack the self-discipline to put an external, objective standard above your own subjective, personal undisciplined standard.

You refuse to submit to another way and always opt to go your way.  You reject the idea of using any other measure than yourself to understand anything.  And this me-first, me-always, me-everything approach is the antithesis of self-discipline.  The words, 'self-discipline' don't mean disciplining yourself to do and think and act what you want.  They mean the opposite.  They mean disciplining yourself by submitting yourself and sacrificing yourself to something bigger and better than yourself.  They mean acknowledging that the answers don't lie within you but outside of you.  They mean curbing your selfishness and putting the standards of others above your own.  They mean following an objective, external standard of behaving and thinking and not always putting your own needs, your own ideas and your own preferences...first.

 

Having disciplined his twelve chosen followers Jesus gave them a task to perform after he left them.

 

Matthew 28 : 18 - 20.

 

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 

19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

 

Jesus didn't say to the remaining eleven, go out and make believers.  He said go out and make disciples... and do it in the same way that I (Jesus) disciplined you.  

That's because one cannot teach another to become a disciple UNLESS they are disciplined themselves... first.  One cannot teach another to become disciplined if they don't have the discipline within themselves...first.   Discipline means not doing what you want nor looking at others who are breaking the rules and saying, "Look at them!  They're doing it!  Why can't I do what they're doing?"  Discipline means holding to an agreed and accepted standard, regardless of how others disregard it, flout it and try to subvert it.  (Their lack of discipline is no example to be following.)  Discipline doesn't mean blind obedience to a higher standard either.  It means following that standard by first putting in the effort and the commitment to understand it and how it works.  Proper understanding comes later, after the effort.

 

Which is what Jesus asks of anyone who says they'll follow him.

Don't do what you think is right.  Don't do what others think is right.  Do what I tell you is right, even if, at first, you don't understand why.  That understanding will come later.

 

Luke 9 : 57 - 62.  (The cost of following Jesus)

 

57 As they were walking along the road, a man said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.”

58 Jesus replied, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.”

59 He said to another man, “Follow me.”

But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.”

60 Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

61 Still another said, “I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say goodbye to my family.”

62 Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.”

.

.

.

So what'll it be, End?

Your way or the right way..?

Will you stop mixing science and religion or will you carry on because you want to you and because others are doing it..?

[StillLooking]

 

 

Please don't get on some science horse. What I am trying to describe is conflation, as you like to say, the mixing of IDEAS, between what is written in the Bible and science. One, you don't understand the principles of Inductively Coupled Plasma techniques or you would be making the errant statements you are making in the next post. Two, it's not "seeing" Moses face in the plasma. YOU, SL are the one that doesn't understand and rants as if you do. What I am doing is making a comparison Moses being in the presence of God, making this analogous to a sample being introduced into the plasma, and the resulting physical changes.

 

Okay, I'll play. Let's mix some ideas from different disciplines. Rather than invent a new one, let's take one that is already out there. Vaccine causes autism. Do you think this is a valid idea to be discussed in medical communities?

 

Certainly

 

 

Let me rephrase my question and ask it again with all the information presented to you so that you answer it with perfect clarity:

 

Right now there is no current peer reviewed research that supports the link between vaccination and autism. However many people cite their personal experience links vaccination with autism and they believe their personal experience. Thus, these people don't vaccinate their kids and they persuade other parents to do the same since they believe they are helping people. This causes outbreaks of some diseases that could be prevented by vaccination.

 

Now the question again, do you think the medical community and public at large need to take the anti vaccination claim as a valid point of view? Yes or no only please.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Please don't get on some science horse. What I am trying to describe is conflation, as you like to say, the mixing of IDEAS, between what is written in the Bible and science. One, you don't understand the principles of Inductively Coupled Plasma techniques or you would be making the errant statements you are making in the next post. Two, it's not "seeing" Moses face in the plasma. YOU, SL are the one that doesn't understand and rants as if you do. What I am doing is making a comparison Moses being in the presence of God, making this analogous to a sample being introduced into the plasma, and the resulting physical changes.

 

Okay, I'll play. Let's mix some ideas from different disciplines. Rather than invent a new one, let's take one that is already out there. Vaccine causes autism. Do you think this is a valid idea to be discussed in medical communities?

 

Certainly

 

 

Let me rephrase my question and ask it again with all the information presented to you so that you answer it with perfect clarity:

 

Right now there is no current peer reviewed research that supports the link between vaccination and autism. However many people cite their personal experience links vaccination with autism and they believe their personal experience. Thus, these people don't vaccinate their kids and they persuade other parents to do the same since they believe they are helping people. This causes outbreaks of some diseases that could be prevented by vaccination.

 

Now the question again, do you think the medical community and public at large need to take the anti vaccination claim as a valid point of view? Yes or no only please.

 

Yes.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, End3, I'm curious.  How can you be "right" if everything is subjective?

[StillLooking]

end3,

 

thank you for your honesty. Now another question, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancers and some non-smokers do have lung cancers.

[Guest end3]

end3,

 

thank you for your honesty. Now another question, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancers and some non-smokers do have lung cancers.

Not sure we may dispute the mechanisms involved in the group that does get the cancer, but there may be some other mechanisms that keep the other group from the development.

[Guest end3]

So, End3, I'm curious.  How can you be "right" if everything is subjective?

We agree in our subjectivity and call it objectivity.

[StillLooking]

 

end3,

 

thank you for your honesty. Now another question, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancers and some non-smokers do have lung cancers.

Not sure we may dispute the mechanisms involved in the group that does get the cancer, but there may be some other mechanisms that keep the other group from the development.

 

Just answer my question please, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancer and some non-smokers do have lung cancer.

[Guest end3]

 

 

end3,

 

thank you for your honesty. Now another question, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancers and some non-smokers do have lung cancers.

Not sure we may dispute the mechanisms involved in the group that does get the cancer, but there may be some other mechanisms that keep the other group from the development.

 

Just answer my question please, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancer and some non-smokers do have lung cancer.

 

I misread the last half of your original question. I don't know if we may dispute it. My thoughts are that if smoking provides some sort of catalyst or provides a part of the mechanism for cancer, then if the mechanism is known/agreed upon, then, I would think it is less disputable.

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

end3,

 

thank you for your honesty. Now another question, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancers and some non-smokers do have lung cancers.

Not sure we may dispute the mechanisms involved in the group that does get the cancer, but there may be some other mechanisms that keep the other group from the development.

 

Just answer my question please, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancer and some non-smokers do have lung cancer.

 

I misread the last half of your original question. I don't know if we may dispute it. My thoughts are that if smoking provides some sort of catalyst or provides a part of the mechanism for cancer, then if the mechanism is known/agreed upon, then, I would think it is less disputable.

 

 

 

Don't dodge the question. Yes or no only. Can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancer and some non-smokers do have lung cancer.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

end3,

 

thank you for your honesty. Now another question, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancers and some non-smokers do have lung cancers.

Not sure we may dispute the mechanisms involved in the group that does get the cancer, but there may be some other mechanisms that keep the other group from the development.

 

Just answer my question please, can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancer and some non-smokers do have lung cancer.

 

I misread the last half of your original question. I don't know if we may dispute it. My thoughts are that if smoking provides some sort of catalyst or provides a part of the mechanism for cancer, then if the mechanism is known/agreed upon, then, I would think it is less disputable.

 

 

 

Don't dodge the question. Yes or no only. Can we dispute the claim by medical community that smoking cigarette causes lung cancer? After all some smokers never have lung cancer and some non-smokers do have lung cancer.

 

YOU DIDN'T SAY YES OR NO ONLY THIS TIME!!! YES, we may dispute the findings...always.

[StillLooking]

 

YOU DIDN'T SAY YES OR NO ONLY THIS TIME!!! YES, we may dispute the findings...always.

 

I will put on hold my next chain of question. I want to clear this response first.

 

May I dispute the findings with MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of knowing a few chain smokers who lived to the age of 90 something without contracting lung cancer?