Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@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 )

1 Reply

@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

2 Replies

@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

1 Reply

@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.

3 Replies

@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

@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?

1 Reply

@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

@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

@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.

1 Reply

@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?

1 Reply

@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.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

So apparently math is not one of them.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Heh, that's all you have.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

You haven't shown me anything worth more keystrokes.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

Intelligent Design, as brought out by Churchianity, is so laughable that who in their right mind could BELIEVE it!

Now, aside from that it is PURE Science.
https://themadjw.weebly.com/uploads/1/2/2/2/12223196/published/brainzoom-email_1.jpg?1559570562

1 Reply

@TruthMatters,

The conclusion does not follow from the antecedent.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

It’s neither science nor religion and insults them both by posing as such.
It's merely a flight of fancy by the ego posing as fact.

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

Dawkins was taking Bishop Pell apart on that vry topic last month.

0 Replies

@coluber2001,

Quote:

It's merely a flight of fancy by the ego posing as fact.

I was just thinking that very same thought about abiogenesis/'chemical evolution' or whatever the hell they're calling it lately.

0 Replies

Wow, 'Nature' just published an article I never thought they'd print. It perfectly describes the scientific community's problem in the ID discussion.

The main idea is in this snippet:

Quote:

Accepting a Nobel prize nearly two decades ago, my old friend Sydney Brenner had a warning for biology. “We are drowning in a sea of data and starving for knowledge,” he said. That admonishment, from one of the founders of molecular biology, who established the nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans as a model organism, is even more relevant to biology today.

Rather often, I go to a research talk and feel drowned in data. Some speakers seem to think they must unleash a tsunami of data if they are to be taken seriously. The framing is neglected, along with why the data are being collected; what hypotheses are being tested; what ideas are emerging. Researchers seem reluctant to come to biological conclusions or present new ideas. The same occurs in written publications. It is as if speculation about what the data might mean and the discussion of ideas are not quite ‘proper’.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know