bio-engineering; synthetic DNA, that replicates - a bit scarey - Page 9

 Inductive reasoning is the mistake made by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationism.

 

They aren't alone in that, not by a long shot. Inductive reasoning itself is not a mistake per say, it is actually quite necessary however, in that it requires a sober and responsible approach.

Let me see, in less than 100 years we have made synthetic DNA. that replicates. Another hundred years what crack will yr god hide in?

 

As if genetic engineering to the extent we have "mastered" it in any way contradicts God. We're not even certain of all the implications of gm crops yet, and may yet prove only our ability to make a mess we cannot clean up.

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

Sevenpatch:

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

 

Are you that naive sevenpatch?  Ok, you asked for it, so here you go:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22186220

  http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-many-scientists-fabricate-and-falsify-research/5363417 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2085814/Scientists-falsify-data-research-published-whistleblowers-bullied-keeping-quiet-claim-colleagues.html   http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/health/time-stem-cell/   http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/05/science/la-sci-science-fraud-20111106   http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/S-F-scientist-resigns-after-faking-data-4158921.php   http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/33695/title/Top-Science-Scandals-of-2012/   http://news.sciencemag.org/2005/03/scientist-pleads-guilty-falsifying-data   http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/26/2422095/university-of-kentucky-researcher.html   http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99298.php   http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080618/full/453969d.html   http://www.biotechniques.com/news/Neuroscientist-Apologizes-for-Falsifying-Data/biotechniques-338952.html#.U0P8lfldVEI     Shall I continue?  Because there is so much evidence showing that scientists do indeed falsify data.  Very sad indeed.     Sevenpatch:  Dissent from Darwinism may be a project of the Discovery Institute, but it is not in any way religious.  Can you prove it is religious?  Also, life scientists are not the only scientists who study evolution.  Are you that naive?  Physicists for example try to explain the origins of the universe with evolution. As to the qualifications of the signers of the petition, I guess Duke, John's Hopkins, Penn State, Rice, Baylor, Rutgers, UC Davis, UC Berkeley, Cambridge, Princeton, Dartmouth, MIT, Emory, Cornell, Purdue, Yale, Vanderbilt, etc. don't meet your criteria?  Everyone who signed the petition had to have a PhD.  Please, tell us your credentials.      

@Beetree:  Maybe you did. ???   Does that mean I cannot raise the

subject with anyone else ?   Meglomania,  hmmm ?  LOL 

Uh, no... but I thought I would bring it up as being ignored, already. By you. 

Carlin did give a different answer than GG, did he not? And you just zeroed in on GG with a snide remark. Thought I'd just point out that you might not really be interested in an answer or a discussion.

Sevenpatch wrote: I see Shtal is trying to equate science with faith which is a fairly pathetic attempt to justify his bias.

 

Observational Knowledge (science), Historical Knowledge (science) and faith always has its place just to make clarification here with your "misinterpretations" and accusing me being bias.

Thank you.

Shtal.

Look, in making that bald statement at that point, ggturner's remark was a put-down.

What, Bee, you never react to that sort of thing ?  [Guess 2Moons wouldn't agree ...] 

 

And, sorry, I reckon I missed Carlin's answer, what with his posts all being directed

at vk4.

Gg i think patch was pointing out that the number of people you mentioned are statistically insignificant other than saying some scientists are skeptical, i say ALL scientists are skeptical .

why doesn't. anyone on the list actually come up with an alternative that's more meaningful than signing a list designed specifically to appear like there is some big split that doesn't even make up 1 percent.


you could ask scientists if UFOs. or hare krishna is real $100 says you will get dissent.


you would get more scientists saying allah is thr one true god as well.


same as yr corrupt data, scientistz are real people liks everyone else they get caught cheating they get the consequences.



your attempt to make science look full of dissenters and liers is deceipt.


you are a willful deceiver.

Shtal why don't you takr patch advice and come up with an actual refutation ov evolution without using superstition. like god did it.

a nobel prize and millions of dollars awaits you.


go on, have a go at it.

Oh, Bee, did you mean that one-liner, that Carlin 'liked' his own self ?

Hardly an alternative, anyway - still nobody is trying to explain the

mysterious circumstances of a book that is supposed to be the

Truth and the Word, but of which no authorship or purpose is actually

claimed by the 'author'.   NB   I am only taking the same 'literal' path of

those who insist every word is true;  arguments about faith and belief in the

abstracts of dogma are not what I am trying to deal with here.

 

How many writers have you ever come across who could resist mentioning

their own works, anyway ?