bio-engineering; synthetic DNA, that replicates - a bit scarey - Page 7

i will be the first to publish them and secure funding and enjoy the instant fame it will bring.

 

Really now? Forgive me, but I'm quite sure I'd do far better on my own; just a hunch.

 

Yr wrong the burden of proof is on you. i posted an article on synthetic dna strands

 

I'm speaking to your body of posts and your bent, VK. You have nothing.

 

Do better than the "red herring" then VK. There is no fault in my intellectual or academic integrity, though I could list the ways in which you continually bastardize your darling.

Vk4,

Yes I can see through a scope once more, this was my right eye and I hate shooting left handed.

Now I don't need to rely so much on a laser sight..lol

 

 

Not a fan of laser altho i like that system where their is a red dot inside the sight thingy that you get inside the optical circle. fraction of the cost of laser and better imo. don't know why the pros hate it so much.

Welcome Moons,,, :)  Glad you are alive and well:) 

I have both,

Price and function go hand in hand though, you definately get what you pay for.

Sight helps but my groups only improved with my own loads, much better than commercial ammo.

I gotta go, you guys can get back to your debate now....lol

 

PS. didn't see ya Ruger,

thanks.

 

 

What a tease you are Moons! You are going to make vk4 cry!

PS. Oh yeah, hi, there.

Moons, paperwork and insurance is awful!  Just adds to the stress and frustration you are already facing with a health concern.

Quote from GGturner:

Good....that is the beauty of true science.  Questioning and looking for answers without bias.

 

Agreed.  Let's start with your next statement.

Quote from GGturner:

Sadly many scientists try to be politically correct or are just plain corrupt.

Any sourse for your claim?  Or are you just making blanket statements that fit your confirmation bias?

Quote from GGturner:

Questioning is the first step to finding answers.

Agreed.  Let's continue by questioning the remainder of your statement.

Quote from GGturner:

Below is a site for scientists around the world who are taking that first step.  They are skeptical because they are scientists and it has nothing to do with religion.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

This is the list of those hundreds of scientists:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Actually, dissentfromdarwin.org is publicized by the Discovery Institute which is a creationist organization so it pretty much has everything to do with religion.  The petition itself is a pathetic attempt to appeal to authority.  There are over 600 signers of the dissent from darwin petition which represents (if they were all in the biological or life sciences fields) a mere .25 of one percent of the 260 thousand life scientists employed in the U.S. as of 2012 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf   (note: you'll have to do the math on your own). 
 
I did a count of the actual life scientists that signed the petition (around 150 or so) so that mere .25 of one percent drops down to .05 of one percent.  Now those 600 plus who signed that petition are from around the world, so, how many life scientists are in the world?  I don't know, anywhere from 10 to 20 million at least I would guess.
 
First step?  Don't get me started on the qualifications of the signers of the petition.  I should note that some are employed by religious schools/universities. 
 
Now, if you want to talk about serious petitions.  Look at Project Steve.  As of March 31st 2014 over 1,300 scientists with a Phd named Steve (or a variation of Steve) have signed up in support of the theory of evolution.  http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve  Here is the list http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves
 
Then there was the word of mouth petition in 2005 which only lasted 4 days called "A Scientific Support for Darwinism" in response to the Discovery Institute petition.  In 4 days the petition countering the one you posted accumulated 7,733 verified signatures from scientists in relevant fields related to the theory of evolution.  So in 4 days, 7,733 scientists who support evolution signed a petition in comparison to the 660 signers so far for a anti-evolution petition which was started back in 2001.  Yeah, might want to do some research regarding your misconceptions about the theory of evolution. 
 
No, anti-evolution is driven by religion.  There is no controversy.  Deal with it.

The funny thing about science and inductive reasoning, is that those vehicles are always being driven by someone, often already having decided where they wish to go.

Carlin wrote: The funny thing about science and inductive reasoning, is that those vehicles are always being driven by someone, often already having decided where they wish to go.

 

Good point Carlin! In accepting evolution as a fact, how many biologists pause to reflect that science is built upon theories that have been proved by experiment to be correct, or remember that the theory of animal evolution has never been thus proved? Or in other words that in the broad scale that is absolutely true! We can’t see a family order class changing into another kind, limit variation with distinct family, species…we seeing that! Creation explains that, predicts that, but the big changes define Darwinian evolution and no experiment has ever proved that ever has or even could happen. The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory…it’s NOT a fact…

And this is a good question that has to be asked in our text books; btw, is it a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in creation…both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. And neither will be in the ultimate scientific sense unless we can invent the time-machine and literary go back and observe what really happen? We can’t do that, therefore its circumstantial evidence. Well, what is that mean? That means we have to compare creation and evolution issues as scientific models rather then as scientific theories, okay!

A scientific theory is a theory that can be put to the test and proven true or false, you can’t do that in broad scale either creation or evolution, ultimately a matter of faith, they can be examine as scientific models, okay! A scientific model is simply conceptual framework that used to correlate and make predictions and correlate the evidence and the model that can correlate evidence with the least number of problems and contradictions and make predictions that fit the real world then that theory is most likely the correct one and that’s where you have to leave it. This theory makes more sense? The way the evidence with it, we therefore put our faith in that as being the most reasonable faith, that’s the best we can do in this area.