Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I presented expert opinions that agree with me. It is not anti-science as both positions were coming from scientists and both hold that GA are not adequate simulations of evolution nor blind. Read them again.No. Talking junk about the validity of controlled conditions is not merely "disagreeing with me". That's just intellectually dishonest anti-science rethoric.
And no evidence.No, it's intellectual honesty.
To not use words like "maybe" and "think" and "could have" etc, would imply a degree of certainty that does not belong in scientific discourse.
"There is" becomes "there might be".
"It is" becomes "it might be".
"It surely is" becomes "it seems likely".
Again: intellectual honesty.
Not "mere guesses based on nothing".
I couldn't agree more.THIS ! !
this right here should be the focus of molecular biology.
this technology, if implemented correctly can solve EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM resource wise the human race faces.
it could definitely end any question about "runninig out of energy" (the energy crisis).
it could end pollution.
it could end the question of enough food, as a matter of fact it could reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero.
Its not my burden and you all need to understand that you have a burden for your positions.
Do you think biologists are imagining design in living organisms?
Do you know the difference between assertion?
Saying that we have a pretty good idea of how something evolved is hand waving and evolution of the gaps mentality. You all claim that you only will believe something if there is evidence to confirm it but you have nothing and still believe stories.
what really gets me is how complex this molecule is.
but yet people get upset when you say that DNA provides the information to build it.
I can't speak for him but it is apparent to me that he is not questioning his professional aptitude but he is letting his biases control his conclusions.
That is simply a lie. I have not quote mined. The book as I have stated is filled with may haves, could be's, perhaps we can believe, if you let your imagination lead you's, it might have happened this ways and on and on and on but not one bit of actual scientific evidence. If you would like to present any scientific evidence that I might have missed in the book feel free to present it. No one has done it because it is not there.
THIS ! !
this right here should be the focus of molecular biology.
this technology, if implemented correctly can solve EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM resource wise the human race faces.
it could definitely end any question about "runninig out of energy" (the energy crisis).
it could end pollution.
it could end the question of enough food, as a matter of fact it could reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero.
I presented expert opinions that agree with me.
GA's are blind in every sense of the word.It is not anti-science as both positions were coming from scientists and both hold that GA are not adequate simulations of evolution nor blind. Read them again.
And no evidence.
THIS ! !
this right here should be the focus of molecular biology.
this technology, if implemented correctly can solve EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM resource wise the human race faces.
it could definitely end any question about "runninig out of energy" (the energy crisis).
it could end pollution.
it could end the question of enough food, as a matter of fact it could reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero.
No, if I make a claim I have that burden of proof. Richard Dawkins and others have made a claim and it is up to him and others to provide the burden of proof. You do understand that right?Right, I forgot...
You are the exception to the rule.
Everyone has a burden of proof, except you.
They can have as many explanation and justifications as they wish but they need to provide evidence for those explanations and justifications.First and foremost, biologist have explanations and justifications for the things they state. Unlike you.
said what?Well, to me it is apparant that he thinks what I said he thinks.
Because, well... he said it.
Sorry. Between evidence and assertion.The difference "between assertion"?
Errr.... wut?
Computer vs. all living organisms....where is the problem here?I have a pretty good idea of how a computer works.
Therefor, I know nothing about computers.
Yep, makes perfect sense.
Do you make up your own definitions now?Yes, it seems you are really impressed by things that are complex.
Only because we know what is being implied when such a thing is said on forums such as this one. The problem lies in what you people understand by the word "information".
He said that all living organisms appear deliberately designed...he believes that because well he said it.Well, to me it is apparant that he thinks what I said he thinks.
Because, well... he said it.
then by definition, you MUST concede that life is more than the mechanical chemical bonds that comprise it.Machines don't reproduce with modification while competing for limited resources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?