bio-engineering; synthetic DNA, that replicates - a bit scarey - Page 11

Bee i like you better as an artist than an arguer, nice job i would definately have that in my home.


which one is you??.......jk, i like it.

Um,Bee, I think you missed the point there.  Problem of funding for science

research projects is not a question of how the money is generated;  it's

about where it is [permitted to be] spent, and on which topics.

 

Lovely paintwork.  We said it would be theraputic, didn't we.

 

Still wondering about Carlin's post - does anybody else click on the like

button when they post something ?    I do 'like' our new toy, it has opened

up whole new areas of understanding where posters are 'coming from' now

we can see who-likes-what !  Thanks, Oli.

GG, where you at??

"does anybody else click on the like button when they post something ?",

I do !! ..lol,,,,,

btw,,Oli i love the new option ! thanks :)

Bee nice drawing,,Is one of them me.....?

vk4:   I have a life to live and don't have the enormous amount of free time sevenpatch must have.

sevenpatch:  Wow, are you gainfully employed?  You sure do have A LOT of spare time.  I must say you wasted your time; too many other things to do than to try to prove your bias.   My links to articles on scientists falsifying data was to show that scientists can be dishonest or corrupt (not all of them of course).   I could have posted many, many more articles, but I don't have the time that you obviously have.   

Good for you for checking out some of the scientists who signed the petition.  You must have a bias against Christian scientists.  Believe it or not, some Christian scientists have been Nobel laureates.  Regardless, the petition those scientists signed is not "driven" by religion as you imply.   The petition is based on skepticism of evolutionary evidence.  Hence, the statement at the beginning of the petition (a statement that says nothing about an intelligent creator).  Here is the statement:  
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."  

The site also has this statement:  

5) By signing the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, are signers endorsing alternative theories such as self-organization, structuralism, or intelligent design?

No. By signing the statement, scientists are simply agreeing with the statement as written.  Signing the statement does not indicate agreement or disagreement with any other scientific theory. It does indicate skepticism about modern Darwinian theory’s central claim that natural selection acting on random mutations is the driving force behind the complexity of life. Signing the statement also indicates support for the careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory.

 

Nothing wrong with skepticism and wanting more evidence in science.  

 

As to physics and evolution, this is where I was coming from:

 

http://www.pittsburghgeologicalsociety.org/evolution.htm

http://fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/alles/Cosmic_Evolution.pdf

http://science1.nasa.gov/astrophysics/big-questions/how-did-universe-originate-and-evolve-produce-galaxies-stars-and-planets-we-see-today/

 

Now, I have a life to live.   

 

Still wondering about Carlin's post - does anybody else click on the like button when they post something ?

 

No need to wonder. Look around. Some of us are willing to sign our names, while most of us are not -telling. 

Well Ruger says she does it too ... seems a little egotistical to

me, what is supposed to be the point ??    Carlin,  WTF  has that got to

do with signing your real name to a post ?   And if  'Carlin'  is real, you

are halfway there already, but I couldn't begin to guess whether that's

your forename or surname.  You may be instantly recognisable to the

American GSD community, [  ], I don't know about that;   but if so,

your fame has not yet spread overseas.  I don't believe I have ever seen

you sign as anything else  -  unlike, as you pointed out, many of us who

do it, and make no secret of who we are,  FWIW.      

Sincerely & openly yrs,   Linda (Swift) ...for the umpteenth time.

seems a little egotistical to me, what is supposed to be the point ??

 

I think you took what I said WAY too serious. My point was that it wouldn't be the first time I was accused of being egotistical. I have also noticed that fewer people are now exercising their opinions with the new transparency. Your willingness to exercise your own was never in question, lol. Don't take that the wrong way, because it's actually something I can respect.

I think it is deliberate piece of propaganda to make it look like a controvresy exists. yeah sure it actually only amounts in the fine print to just admitting nothing more than some skepticism on a particular threory which as i have said scienctists shoulf be skeptical about evrything.


The two carefully chosen words Darwinism and dissent and a list of scientists is obviously the high impact headline. we all know most people that's all they neef to confirm their bias.


Deliberate deceipt so crafty you think.it wadesigned by satan.

the fine print is a back door out for cowards otherwise it would not be fine print. it would like the two words designed to be most obvious and catch the search engines.

now add to all this a bunch of articles supposed to look like there is wide spread corruption when if you fo the math they prove the oppositte. you nobody much will check the math. more feeding the bias.


looks like some do check the math and think rationally getting rare in america.

Our likes havr morphed yo agrees???