|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discontinuing research about ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The reference about a triune God was mentioned a few times by me: Message 39, Message 90, Message 111 but until now "Dr Adequate" was the only one who disagreed, because he literally can't image that it would be something God would do ... This is, of course, not true. It is wildly and bizarrely untrue. I never said that I couldn't imagine God doing such a thing. I said that I have no expectation that God would do such a thing. If you find that you need to defend your opinions with flat and egregious falsehoods, then this is kind of a hint that your opinions are not all that good. --- I may come back to your other shifty equivocations later. Right now I am frankly too annoyed by your flagrant dishonesty to keep my temper. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Wow. Really? We are now discussing only about theological arguments? No one else who wants to disagree with any part of the paper? I expected that because all other person (partly acquaintances, partly a few id proponents) who have looked at the paper also wasn't able to refute the paper. But I didn't expected that to happen that fast here. Well, if someone still have question, then I still will answer them. Well, you didn't answered the questions. I asked you about one person, but you only responded about two or more persons. You might apologise that I wasn't able to understand you correctly. If you would answer the questions I asked you, then I could more easily understand your theological argument. That's kind of ironic. You already sound like an young earth creationist who wants to refute evolution because there might be shifty equivocations in it. I would like to hear what you claim to have found. But you should be aware that the pattern has a residual uncertainty of 1:10^7. If you actually are able to name a few shifty equivocations, then there would be still a high residual uncertainty with for example 1:10^5. However, I would like to hear what you claim to have found. I really don't need discussions about this paper, it's content was already verified, but not yet in a peer-review. I won't try to force anyone to join this discussion, if there are no more comments about it, then it's alright for me too. I cannot find anything in this gibberish that is either a justification of your dishonesty or an apology for it. Indeed, in so far as this incoherent trash has any meaning at all, it almost seems like you're doubling down --- and, indeed, inventing newer and stupider lies. And then you wonder why you can't get published. Edited by Dr Adequate, : I said some things that I think were way too savage and which I regret and apologize for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I wonder why I ever had the idea to post here. If you would spend less time with offending other people, then I actually could imagine to discuss with you. But you don't want that. I wonder, can I ask someone to banish you for calling me "dishonest filth"? You certainly can. Send a private message to "Admin".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Dr Adequate: The only thing you did here was to present your sarcasm and to offend me. I also presented you with an unanswerable critique of your massive and ridiculous failure. Perhaps you missed it, it was mixed in with the sarcasm. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm going to allow posts like this until Dubreuil responds to my request in Message 186 that he be very clear about what portions of his paper we should be ignoring. I don't think he knows which portions of his paper we should be ignoring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Respective sciences... Startrekology. Kirkanomics. You've got to realize that Mr. Dubreuil is an expert in these fields and as such is disinclined to listen to the chatter of uninformed rabble such as we, who only know about real science. {Non-topic sniping material hidden. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Non-topic sniping material hidden. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Change subtitle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
"Dr Adequate" and "Cat Sci" are not a good reference. If I would still discuss with "Dr Adequate", then he would still insult me. Worse yet, I'd point out clear errors in your reasoning in a way that you apparently still find unanswerable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hi mikechell, the problem is the nature of the current source code of life (DNA). Its just too damn complicated to create itself ... I guess that's why no-one says it "created itself".
Just the fact that scientist's are currently battling just to copy the process even though the blueprint and the ingredients are already known, is testimony to the impossibility of nature not just copying DNA, but DESIGNING it spontaneously. So the fact that it is difficult to produce something by design proves that that's how it was produced? If no-one can make a tree, that proves that someone did?
The concept requires intelligent life. Whereas life complex enough to conceive, design and create DNA apparently doesn't require anything ... it "created itself", I suppose?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The possibility of DNA self generating is too far -fetched to be a plausible scientific argument for the appearance of matter. Could it be termed a hypothesis? Not unless you can find someone who believes it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I wasn't suggesting we slam on any brakes regarding trying to replicate DNA. I was merely pointing out the unlikelihood of the original design occurring spontaneously if intelligent minds battle to replicate it. Whereas biochemical processes replicate DNA all the time. So, we have something that you say can't be done by intelligent minds, but which we know can be done by unintelligent natural processes. And on this basis, we're meant to conclude that it was done by an intelligent mind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Firstly, I never said it cant be done by intelligent minds. Then what was your point?
Secondly, natural biochemical processes do not "replicate DNA". Please show me your evidence for your statement. Start here. DNA replication - Wikipedia Edited by Admin, : Fix typo, "The" => "Then".
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024