87
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2021 12:49 pm
@Leadfoot,
no a barcode does nothing about the structure and recipe of the can a soup. ribosomes do.

positioning, type, number on the chain, linkage number of separate units , and are there any other genes sporting close structures, stop codons and TERMINATORS .
AND its all done by fat chance in a specific environment(Eh/pH )
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2021 04:38 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
AND its all done by fat chance in a specific environment(Eh/pH )


'Fat Chance'. Love it.

You & IB have dropped into incoherence. Dunno what more to say
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 06:43 am
@Leadfoot,
This is a memorial site and I dont wish to have it get closed up if you start getting all rude again. Ive asked you to read some molcular bio/biochem/and organic chem. (There is one good one called biochem for dummies), its accessible and I have it as a rference (on forgets linkag styls nd Freundlich numbrs ovr the years so Im not proud).
I think , rathr than criticize people about things that you understand less about, you should invest in a book or two.

Lets back off thi thread and let it be a memorial to our friend Wandel.
Thanks
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 07:47 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Ive asked you to read some molcular bio/biochem/and organic chem.


That is a weak dodge in the middle of a scientific debate. If you can't explain in simple language what is wrong with any given point in my argument, it means you don't understand it. If you can't explain the point in the book you recommend, it means you don't understand it either. Which in this case says a lot.

And a fitting memorial to the OP would be an honest debate, not polite avoidance of the argument.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 09:13 am
@Leadfoot,
ive entered cogent, evidence filled discussions. youve merely denied them based on your moderate education in chem. i really give not a **** about your ignorance unless you do want to learn, apparently your learning stops at a point where you can inser a designer without facts or evidence
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 09:16 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:

And a fitting memorial to the OP would be an honest debate, not polite avoidance of the argument.


You relize that my post of admonishment came right after you claiming "Fat Chance" . Still the ole passive aggressive arent you?
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 12:35 pm
@farmerman,
That was YOUR 'fat chance' I was quoting. Are you not going to own it?

BTW, all of your 'cogent arguments' add up to just that.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 01:52 pm
@Leadfoot,
Expecting you to provide a cite for your assertions is incoherent to you?

These futile attempts at debate with you are all coherent now.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 02:14 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Ive asked you to read some molcular bio/biochem/and organic chem.


That is a weak dodge in the middle of a scientific debate. If you can't explain in simple language what is wrong with any given point in my argument, it means you don't understand it.

Heh, this debate is more about statistics and your conflation of long odds with impossibility. Your argument is simple enough, along with its flaw.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 06:05 pm
@InfraBlue,
If you think my argument is based on simple complexity, then you aren't able to understand it. Nor are you able to cite any fallacy in it.

Asking me to cite a source for that 'dogma' i mentioned, is like someone asking a physicist to cite where he got the second law of thermodynamics from. It just proves the questioner is unfamiliar with that field of science.
But if you can prove im wrong about that 'dogma' , or that there is no such thing, THEN you would have a point.

May I ask what fields of science you feel competent in?
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2021 10:44 pm
@Leadfoot,
The fallacy in your argument is that you confuse long odds with impossibility, as I've already pointed out.

It's risible that you assert that a physicist couldn't point to the works of say Clausius, Kelvin, and Carnot.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2021 06:31 am
@InfraBlue,
So apparently math is not one of them.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2021 09:49 am
@Leadfoot,
Heh, that's all you have.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 19 Jul, 2021 11:06 am
@InfraBlue,
You haven't shown me anything worth more keystrokes.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 08/04/2021 at 05:12:03