Christian Vets

Veterinary Science Graduate Programs from U. of I.
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members don't see this ad.
Ok, great...but you've completely missed the point.BigCatLover said they felt a certain way just because they were a good person, and it was NOT because of religion. My point, was that just in Christianity, her/his idea of how to live a good life could be traced back to Christianity. So, every other religious example you gave on top of my Christian ones, just further proved my point. Thanks for that
Click to expand...
Actually, it'd seem that you're the one who missed the point. Religions are derivative of one another, drawing from each other, picking out the pieces they like and ignoring the rest. Your idea on how to live a good life is not traced back to Christianity, nor any other religion, but rather to the creators of those religions (which are mortal just as you and I). That's not the same unless you're using 'religion' as just another word with no supernatural connotation to it (so simply just to identify a party). In that case, yes, it's derived from religion which was created by man, so ultimately your idea on how to live a good life is traced back to mankind.

Secondly, I was not the one who mentioned being religious to avoid going to Hell, again...in response to BigCatLover's theory. My point was that gong to Hell was NOT a reason for my being religious.
Click to expand...
It matters not who mentioned hell. You had to actively distinguish that you're religious not just because you believe you'll go to hell, which is the default. The fact remains that most Christians (and other relevant religions) believe in a hell as punishment. I never said it was your reason for believing, but you're not the only Christian/religious person.
 
Last edited:
Gosh, I've been away for several days visiting my daughter, and the thread is still going strong! I'm so glad to see so many non-believers standing up for our morality. I think it's really important for religious people to know that we are good people who do not need a spirit guide in our lives to know how to live. Leading by example is best...sometimes when we do a kind deed and someone says "god bless you", it's good to be able to say that you just did it to help the other person and that there was no god who had anything to do with it. This helps spread the goodwill of humanism. Maybe one day we'll catch up to the European nations where there is a much higher percentage of non-believers. But in the meanwhile, it's good to know there are so many educated people (prevets and vets are smart, right?) who share my point of view
 
Bisbee said:
I'm so glad to see so many non-believers standing up for our morality.
Click to expand...

reallyyyyy? i thought the purpose of this thread was originally to just discuss each other's point of view of one's religion. you tell me about yours, i tell you about mines. now it just seems like each side is slamming the other's morals and beliefs. i do not believe that the Christians are exactlyy trying to convert y'all non-believers or anything, it's just everyone is so defensive. i'm sorry but, this statement you just made makes it seem like Christians are the "bad guys". this is not the case. there is no good guy/bad guy. we are all "bad people" just trying to do good in life.

Bisbee said:
I think it's really important for religious people to know that we are good people who do not need a spirit guide in our lives to know how to live.
Click to expand...

as a christian myself, yeah, i know that there are good people out there that have religious morals [christian, buddhism, hinduism, etc] AND that there are people out there that are good even without any religious morals. in the end, what it comes down to is when you are facing life coming to an end....was any of that worth it? what you lived for? what you didn't live for? i guess we'll only find out when it really is the end of the world. so for now, just keep it simple. i respect your values and you respect mines. keep loving each other because that's the #1 rule in both the religious & non-religious world...plus, the Beatles even said it themselves..."All you need is love"
 
Bisbee didn't say anything offensive. As an atheist, you get many people questioning how you could have morals which gets really frustrating. So Bisbee was saying how nice it is to see other atheists affirming that atheists have morals even though we're godless heathens :meanie:
 
Yes, thank you Bunnity. That's exactly what I was saying. I just wanted everyone to know that we are good people, too. I was just so glad to see that other atheists are on the board saying that we do have morals, even though they are not dictated by a spirit. I didn't try to offend anyone.
 
thaowey said:
reallyyyyy? i thought the purpose of this thread was originally to just discuss each other's point of view of one's religion. you tell me about yours, i tell you about mines.
Click to expand...


no no no... actually... the original purpose of this thread was from one person who wanted to find out if there were other christian vets 'out there'. lol!

Then everyone got all defensive because they felt they were being targeted.

Seems like religion is just another excuse for people to fight! Ah well what'er floats your boat!
 
I have attached an interesting article. (I hope I did the attachment right).
 

Attachments

Ya mean the fact that I have no avatar? Yeah...I'll have to get around to putting one up there at some point. Sorry for the lack of visual interest.
 
Well, I must say I haven't read through all six pages of this thread so sorry if these exact words have been mentioned before. But, I think a lot of us would benefit from taking a World Religions class or something of the sort. Even if you disagree with a religion or all religions, we should accept and respect each other. It's when we disrespect and not accept each other that everything just goes to Hell/Sheol/Nothingness/Etc in a hand basket. [ End Hippie Comment ]

😍
 
drwildlife said:
But, I think a lot of us would benefit from taking a World Religions class or something of the sort. Even if you disagree with a religion or all religions, we should accept and respect each other.
Click to expand...

A person shouldn't need to take a class about religion to do this, as it has nothing to do with religion.
 
Coquette22 said:
Not to speak for nyanko, but I'm guessing "accept and respect each other". You shouldn't need to take a world religions class to do that.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see. And, I realize this. I never said anyone/I needed to take a World Religions class to do that. Just that some people benefit from taking such a class.
 
It still amazes me to this day that people who are obviously very smart still buy into the whole god in the sky story.
 
seansie said:
It still amazes me to this day that people who are obviously very smart still buy into the whole god in the sky story.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should take a world religions class 😛
 
seansie said:
It still amazes me to this day that people who are obviously very smart still buy into the whole god in the sky story.
Click to expand...

And cue the supercilious atheist 🙄

I don't care what you believe (personally, I'm not religious at all either) but don't go around posting smarmy insulting crap. It just makes you look immature.
 
it's only supercilious in the sense that rationalism is superior to fantasy. i'd say its more of a hubristic statement and is just accurate. There are some very smart people that believe incredibly ridiculous things and it truly amazes me how individuals can compartmentalize their rationalism. Is the statement insulting or the idea that what religious people are experiencing isn't based in reality? A world religion class is a great idea. I can only hope that it is some day taught in public schools in this country.

It's unfortunate that this thread has turned into a theism vs science thread when the original poster just wanted to find other christians in their profession. I didn't mean to come across as insulting at all and I apologize if I did.
 
seansie said:
it's only supercilious in the sense that rationalism is superior to fantasy. i'd say its more of a hubristic statement and is just accurate. There are some very smart people that believe incredibly ridiculous things and it truly amazes me how individuals can compartmentalize their rationalism.
Click to expand...

How is it any more rational that the entire world, everything from the perfect mix of gravity, physics, weather, the Cambrian explosions, etc made incredible complex life via a divine being versus pure chance?


Both are totally theoretical. The fossil record is pathetic, especially in terms of human evolution, and the Biblical explanation is full of holes. Neither theory is superior.
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
How is it any more rational that the entire world, everything from the perfect mix of gravity, physics, weather, the Cambrian explosions, etc made incredible complex life via a divine being versus pure chance?


Both are totally theoretical. The fossil record is pathetic, especially in terms of human evolution, and the Biblical explanation is full of holes. Neither theory is superior.
Click to expand...

the first think you mention is the goldilocks fallacy. How is everything just so that life can exist in perfect harmony? Well, the only place that we could exist is somewhere that is somewhat hospitable and that place is here. It's not as if we just happen to be somewhere that is hospitable. The only place possible place for us to be is somewhere that is like here, so here we are.

Pure chance? None of this is by chance. Complex life has evolved not due to pure chance but by natural selection which could not be further from chance. Not one evolutionary biologist would say we are here by chance. This is a giant straw man that is erected by those wishing to diminish evolutionary theory.

The fossil record is beautiful and far from "pathetic" and is only one of the methods that scientists use and it completely supports evolutionary theory.

The biblical "theory" is a misnomer. There is no theory there. A theory is an explanation of facts. The bible has none. It's a misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal cookbook for disaster. Evolutionary theory is not a theory in the colloquial sense as just an idea. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions
 
seansie said:
the first think you mention is the goldilocks fallacy. How is everything just so that life can exist in perfect harmony? Well, the only place that we could exist is somewhere that is somewhat hospitable and that place is here. It's not as if we just happen to be somewhere that is hospitable. The only place possible place for us to be is somewhere that is like here, so here we are.

Pure chance? None of this is by chance. Complex life has evolved not due to pure chance but by natural selection which could not be further from chance. Not one evolutionary biologist would say we are here by chance. This is a giant straw man that is erected by those wishing to diminish evolutionary theory.

The fossil record is beautiful and far from "pathetic" and is only one of the methods that scientists use and it completely supports evolutionary theory.

The biblical "theory" is a misnomer. There is no theory there. A theory is an explanation of facts. The bible has none. It's a misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal cookbook for disaster. Evolutionary theory is not a theory in the colloquial sense as just an idea. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions
Click to expand...

363-bruce-willis-cool-story-bro-image.jpg
 
Seansie,
I am here to agree with your take on things. It is hard for those of us who live by rational thought and experience to understand those who believe in spirits based on faith. That's what it always inevitably comes down to...reason vs. faith. People who believe in god(s) have a reason/need for that, and I have yet to understand that reason. When someone tries to have a rational conversation with the intent of finding out the basis for the belief, the religious person often becomes angry and defensive. They feel they are being attacked and have to vehemently defend their faith because to them, this is the most important thing in their life. Some religious people also see atheists as evil, unethical people. While we see ourselves as simply trying to understand this "compartmentalization" (as you refer to it), the religious person sees it as a slap in the face, an intrusion, an attack on their intelligence. I know you are being honest in asking a general question about how a person of science who is smart in other areas cannot apply that same scientific approach to the question of god and creation. This is something that all of us atheists wonder. Unfortunately, however, I have personally been unable to get far enough into a conversation on this topic with a religious person without finding them to be upset in some way; so I've learned to back off. Maybe I shouldn't really be backing off, but there's that human nature thing where I don't like to find myself upsetting anyone. somehow, though, I know that, although this post is intend for you to know my experience as an atheist and to know you aren't alone in this, it may upset people (last thing I want).
 
seansie said:
The biblical "theory" is a misnomer. There is no theory there. A theory is an explanation of facts. The bible has none. It's a misogynistic, homophobic, genocidal cookbook for disaster
Click to expand...

I'm agreeing with you on this point. Did you somehow miss that?

And in terms of chance, I was referring more to the creation of the universe. I'm well aware of basic natural selection, and have no issue with it. It's right in front of our face.

seansie said:
The fossil record is beautiful and far from "pathetic" and is only one of the methods that scientists use and it completely supports evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...

Then why don't we have hundreds of human skeletons showing exactly how we arose from the apes? Considering how many dinosaurs and all that business we have? That's what I was referring to. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

Again, I fully support the notion of evolution. I just think it has some holes, like pretty much everything does.

Ugh, I'm turning this into a debate, which I swore not to. Outta here.
 
Last edited:
Bisbee said:
Seansie,
When someone tries to have a rational conversation with the intent of finding out the basis for the belief, the religious person often becomes angry and defensive.
Click to expand...

Personally, I have seen atheists become just as defensive, derisive and mean when they are questioned by a religious person.....it's not a matter of one side being right/wrong, it's a matter of presenting your arguement. And seansie started right off in insinuating that religious people are stupid. I don't support religion at all, but I respect people believe what they want to believe and don't publicly sneer at them.

Bisbee said:
Some religious people also see atheists as evil, unethical people.
Click to expand...

And some (nay, most) atheists see religious people as stupid sheep. It goes both ways.
 
Yes, Yes. You are right...people can become emotional and even mean on both sides. I guess that's the frustration we all feel when we can't seem to make another person see things the way we do. I look back at what Seansie said that "people who are obviously smart" (that part doesn't seem insulting, does it?) buy into the "god in the sky". I guess it's that last part that seems condescending? I don't know...she didn't actually say anyone was stupid. I took it as though she wants to know from someone who is smart how they are able to "compartmentalize" and believe something like that. That is why I brought up faith, something that some of us will never understand since we don't live our own lives based on faith. I, myself, wish I could understand how people of science do this compartmentalization.
 
I didn't call anyone stupid. That's not fair. It seems like you are the one trying to further drive the religious and non-religious apart by saying I was being insulting.

You called it "biblical theory." That is truly ridiculous. You said neither theory is superior. Holes? what holes exist in evolutionary theory? There are no contradictions at all. Please name one.

Humans did not arise from apes or come from apes. This is another misunderstanding of a basic principle in evolutionary theory. Apes and Humans came from a common ancestor. One did not come from the other. This and the "pure chance" fallacy are rampant. If you were well aware of natural selection, why would you invoke the pure chance/goldilocks fallacy?

No evidence of human evolution?
I'll let Dr. D take that one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggwu5sWU0Mo
There are plenty of transitional fossils that beautifully show human evolution. Every fossil is transitional.

Religious people are sheep, that is one of the main parts of being religious. You are to become a herd and follow blindly. That was the entire purpose of the bible comparing followers to sheep in the first place. Does that make them stupid? Absolutely not? Gullible and incredulous? Absolutely. They are not the same.

It is the non-believers that are most active in ensuring that religious people continue to have the right to believe and pray to whatever they want. It is us that works to keep the separation of church and state which is what allows religious freedom and stops religious tyranny. We may become defensive and mean but it isn't because we feel attacked.It is because we get insanely frustrated how irrational people are and how they absolutely refuse to see what is directly in front of them.
 
seansie said:
I didn't call anyone stupid. That's not fair. It seems like you are the one trying to further drive the religious and non-religious apart by saying I was being insulting.

You called it "biblical theory." That is truly ridiculous. You said neither theory is superior. Holes? what holes exist in evolutionary theory? There are no contradictions at all. Please name one.

Humans did not arise from apes or come from apes. This is another misunderstanding of a basic principle in evolutionary theory. Apes and Humans came from a common ancestor. One did not come from the other. This and the "pure chance" fallacy are rampant. If you were well aware of natural selection, why would you invoke the pure chance/goldilocks fallacy?

No evidence of human evolution?
I'll let Dr. D take that one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ggwu5sWU0Mo
There are plenty of transitional fossils that beautifully show human evolution. Every fossil is transitional.

Religious people are sheep, that is one of the main parts of being religious. You are to become a herd and follow blindly. That was the entire purpose of the bible comparing followers to sheep in the first place. Does that make them stupid? Absolutely not? Gullible and incredulous? Absolutely. They are not the same.

It is the non-believers that are most active in ensuring that religious people continue to have the right to believe and pray to whatever they want. It is us that works to keep the separation of church and state which is what allows religious freedom and stops religious tyranny. We may become defensive and mean but it isn't because we feel attacked.It is because we get insanely frustrated how irrational people are and how they absolutely refuse to see what is directly in front of them.
Click to expand...


A) I called it biblical "theory" because that is how people who believe in it call it. To them, what happened in the Bible is fact. And you yourself said that theories are used to tie facts together. Is it a theory to me? No. But to others it is.

B) I was being facetious about apes. And I did not say there is NO evidence. My opinion is that there is insufficient evidence. Do I still believe in human evolution? Duh, yes. But it's not completely undebatable and proven, either. The number of complete and accurate cases is quite low. What I meant was, we have no undebatable, clear fossil record to explain human evolution. Are there things that support it? Of course. But it's not fact. You can use facts to support theories, but a theory itself can never be a fact - a theory is an ideology that ties evidence together. This point has been debated many times in every situation from history to physics in terms of what we can prove and what we cannot. If you want to get philosophical, there actually are few things we can prove, but that's an entire other arguement. My opinion is that we cannot prove human evolution. Or the random creation of the universe into something that supports life as it does. We also cannot prove there is a God/the world was created in seven days, whatever. That's why I'm basically agnostic at best.

C) Again, I invoked pure chance in terms of the creation of the universe, another pont that religious and non-religious people debate. Both macro and microevolution are not random.

D) No, you didn't call anyone stupid overtly. But your comment was quite snide.
 
Last edited:
Every time a gap in the fossil record is filled, two more gaps are created 😉
 
A. Something cannot be a fact to one person and not a fact to another. A fact is a fact regardless of someone decides to believe it is true. Sure, religious people can look at the fact of evolution and say, i don't believe that, just like they could deny the fact that the we live in a heliocentric solar system. Regardless of whether or not someone believes that the sun is the center, it doesn't change the fact, that it is.


B. Your opinion is incorrect. There is enormous amounts of overwhelming evidence in the fossil record alone to support the fact of evolution. Sure philosophically you can say we can't really "know" anything but what is the point in that? We might as well throw our hands up and say we can't know anything with that approach and where does that leave us? Evolution as well as "human evolution" has been proved in the same sense that gravity has been proved and the Earth revolves around the sun has been "proved" You say you were being facetious? Ok. But you were basing your entire point on your facetious statement and that makes no sense. There is no debate about whether or not evolution happened. The fossil record is overwhelming in evidence and even without it, evolution has been "proved".

C. The beginnings of the universe have absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of life. There are no sound philosophical arguments that are not easily refuted that support a divine beginning at all, so why invoke it?

D. It is only snide because the idea cannot be conveyed in any other way. The fact that very smart people compartmentalize their rationalism cannot be perceived in any other manner. It basically is telling the religious person that they are incorrect in their very understanding of everything and if they were more rational in that part of their life, then they would see it too. Is that snide? perhaps but that is not my fault.

Agnosticism is a respectable position to have. I don't know is one of the most respectable positions to have when you really don't know. Sometimes we do know things and evolution by natural selection happens to be one of them.
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
Then why don't we have hundreds of human skeletons showing exactly how we arose from the apes? Considering how many dinosaurs and all that business we have? That's what I was referring to. Perhaps I should have been more specific.

Again, I fully support the notion of evolution. I just think it has some holes, like pretty much everything does.

Ugh, I'm turning this into a debate, which I swore not to. Outta here.
Click to expand...
Since I am an expert on human evolution (cough cough... ok only 2 classes but one of them with a top prof in the field), I would say that this point is exaggerated. We actually have a ton of fossil evidence showing the evolution of hominids into modern man. But, because we care so much about the specific evolution of humans, we look into the evolution in much greater detail. We have much less evidence on any particular dinosaur species.

It is not a question of lack of specimens. Are there gaps? Of course, there are. But it is not like there is suddenly some huge change that is unaccounted for. From australopithecus (2-4mm years ago) to the homo habilis/homo erectus (0.4-1.5 mm) to the modern homos (0.5mm to 0.1mm) is pretty well defined. It is just the individuals that make that transition that is still a bit murky. But it is hard to have those skulls in your hand and say there is not a noticeable transition occurring (come to the Penn museum and you can actually see/touch a ton of these).

This has nothing to do with your whole debate going on, but I just wanted to point out that we know a lot more about the transition to homo sapiens than probably any other species... And there will always be gaps because the large proportion of individual skeletons are not preserved!
 
StartingoverVet said:
It is not a question of lack of specimens. ....

Are there gaps? Of course, there are. But it is not like there is suddenly some huge change that is unaccounted for. From australopithecus (2-4mm years ago) to the homo habilis/homo erectus (0.4-1.5 mm) to the modern homos (0.5mm to 0.1mm) is pretty well defined. It is just the individuals that make that transition that is still a bit murky. .....

And there will always be gaps because the large proportion of individual skeletons are not preserved!
Click to expand...

I didn't say there was a huge gap unaccounted for. And when I said lack, I was referring to lack of complete and/or preserved pieces.

It really comes down to how you turn an idea into a belief. I am one of those types of people that needs explicit proof. It's just my nature. Therefore, I tend to consider a lot of scientific theories theories, and not cold hard facts, just because of that. It doesn't mean I do not believe them, or use them in practice. It doesn't mean I think evolution is a myth. I just get very irked when people say it is a 100% provable fact, which I do not think we have enough evidence to do. That's my opinion. I'm probably not explaining my point well, but it's been one of those weeks.
 
seansie said:
D. It basically is telling the religious person that they are incorrect in their very understanding of everything and if they were more rational in that part of their life, then they would see it too. Is that snide? perhaps but that is not my fault.
Click to expand...

You were saying that is it bizarre that people who are supposedly very smart believe in a God.

Nothing about evolution.

Someone flat-out rejects evolution and believes the world was created in 7 days does have screws loose, I admit. But in terms of believing in a God (who may well have directed all of this evolution - which is what many modern religions believe)...there is nothing anyone can say to disprove it OR prove it the existence of a God. Does that mean one exists? No, of course not. Does that mean one doesn't exist? No. So who cares? Just live and let live.
 
I th
WhtsThFrequency said:
I didn't say there was a huge gap unaccounted for. And when I said lack, I was referring to lack of complete and/or preserved pieces.

It really comes down to how you turn an idea into a belief. I am one of those types of people that needs explicit proof. It's just my nature. Therefore, I tend to consider a lot of scientific theories theories, and not cold hard facts, just because of that. It doesn't mean I do not believe them, or use them in practice. It doesn't mean I think evolution is a myth. I just get very irked when people say it is a 100% provable fact, which I do not think we have enough evidence to do. That's my opinion. I'm probably not explaining my point well, but it's been one of those weeks.
Click to expand...
I think you were pretty clear. And I think you are have the right attitude. I was just clarifying the specific point because it is an interest of mine.
 
nyanko said:
Are you just referring to the currently believed path for human evolution here, or to the idea of evolution in general?
Click to expand...


Both. But again, I feel the need to keep saying this because I have a feeling I am being painted as something else - I am not saying evolution is false. I am saying that I hate it when people purport anything as 100% fact when, in my opinion, we don't (yet) have enough proof to make a truly cohesive, bulletproof a-leads-to-b-leads-to.....etc all the way to z. If we did, people wouldn't debate it any more - even people within the field argue as to the various pathways that various species developed.

I guess this is a better explanation. I'm in pathology, as many of you know. This is how I work:

Say we have a bull come in. We open him up, and there's massive fibrosis and necrosis in the pericardium and heart. Looks a lot like hardware, right? Although, I cannot find any sort of penetrating object or tract. So, in my report, I say "findings are most consistent with hardware disease". Can I prove that it's hardware disease? No, even with the gross findings, because I did not find the actual object. But can I believe it is and think it's pretty darn likely? Sure.

Or a dog who acutely went down in the back end and was managed for days and then euthanized, and we see some herniated discs on necropsy. But on histopath, the spinal cord has little to no damage. Did the discs probably cause the signs? Sure. But I don't have proof in the cord as well to tie a nice little ribbon around the package.
 
Perhaps rather than scenarios where things can't be proven, you could provide a scenario where you would feel as if something was 100% proven fact. Because my read here is just that you're skeptical about anything. Which is perfectly valid and fine, but would really tend to muddle up any argument you were trying to make about the veracity of a given claim.
 
nyanko said:
Perhaps rather than scenarios where things can't be proven, you could provide a scenario where you would feel as if something was 100% proven fact. Because my read here is just that you're skeptical about anything. Which is perfectly valid and fine, but would really tend to muddle up any argument you were trying to make about the veracity of a given claim.
Click to expand...

I'm always skeptical. It's part of my job, because there are definitely times we end up finding something totally different that the clinician had anticipated from all of their ultrasound, x rays, bloodwork, etc.

I wasn't aware that I *was* trying to argue for the veracity of any given claim, ie, evolution vs creation vs flying spaghetti monster vs whatever.

Ok, an example of something I consider proven. Horse has all usual clinical signs of rabies. We cut in brainstem and trigeminal ganglia and see not only all of the hallmark inflammation, but can visualize the viral particles in the neurons. It is essentially irrefutable to me: the horse was infected with the virus. In contrast to evolution, which does have support, but not enough in my mind to consider it 100% fact the way we delineate it now. Obviously, there was a progression of species and differentiation. I can't, and wouldn't, deny that. But the exact hows and whys are still debatable, thus making it still a theory in my mind.

I can see what you are saying, though. Any time we are looking at historic evidence and trying to piece it together, there is always an element of uncertainty. That's just the nature of things, I believe. Unless I have it right there in front of me, all spelled out with no gaps, I still consider things theory, even if I do follow them and believe in them.
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
Ok, an example of something I consider proven. Horse has all usual clinical signs of rabies. We cut in brainstem and trigeminal ganglia and see not only all of the hallmark inflammation, but can visualize the viral particles in the neurons. It is essentially irrefutable to me: the horse was infected with the virus.
Click to expand...

You can visualize the viral particles in the neurons and can say the horse was infected with the virus. But can you say with 100% certainty that the horse's clinical signs and the pathological lesions were caused by the viral particles you see? You didn't actually see the viral particles cause the signs, did you? The belief that they do and the mechanism through which they do so are a result of somebody's observation and experimentation, on a different animal in a different situation. Yet you consider it scientific fact?

(I'm not trying to antagonize you here or anything, I promise. 😉)

edit: I guess my entire point (besides to alleviate my boredom as I wait for Gibbs samples to be generated) is that skepticism is absolutely critical, but there is really a point where it becomes pathological and pedantic. And that's what leads to things like 9/11 truthers and people who don't believe that AIDS is a result of infection with HIV and all manner of conspiracy theorists.
 
Last edited:
nyanko said:
edit: I guess my entire point (besides to alleviate my boredom as I wait for Gibbs samples to be generated) is that skepticism is absolutely critical, but there is really a point where it becomes pathological and pedantic. And that's what leads to things like 9/11 truthers and people who don't believe that AIDS is a result of infection with HIV and all manner of conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...


I completely agree.

My comparison was meant to say that *in general* I believe that some things have enough physical proof, in my mind, to call them facts.

There are enough gaps in evolution for me to consider it a theory.

Not that one is absolutely fact (notice I said, something I consider fact) and one is not. Of course, if you really go off the deep end like some people, you can find an explanation, however farfetched, to be skeptical of anything. I was trying to give an example of enough physical proof versus not enough proof.

Make more sense?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cowsrcool
Current Vets and Vet students: WWYD?
2 3
Replies
128
Views
9K
battie
battie
Shiloh47
  • Locked
Vet School / Vet Profession and Economic Policy
2
Replies
99
Views
3K
supershorty
supershorty
C
Female Large Animal Vets- safety in regards to clients
Replies
6
Views
2K
MixedAnimals77
MixedAnimals77
Kirb
Traditional Small Animal GP Vet Assistant vs Dentist Vet Assistant Job
Replies
3
Views
418
juggling-zebra0831
J
M
  • Question Question
Vet Experience or Animal Experience?
Replies
5
Views
752
mnnatio
M
Top