True, the issue is the false perception/claim of knowing what is not known.
God is the necessary absolute causal influence. The effects are the evidence for the cause.
The observed behavior of galaxies (effect) is the reason behind the inference that “dark energy did it" (cause). Other than...
Can’t you follow a simple argument without some fallacious games?
In #2780, you claimed “The vast majority of one's DNA is nonfunctional”, I’m telling you this is an obsolete science, why you shift the goal posts to argument about God and play some semantics game with function and purpose...
I'm right and you're not trying to debate ethically.
help me for what? I said many times that this kind of binary thinking is a false dichotomy. I guess you will never get it.
totally false.
that is an obsolete science, we discussed that before, you don't pay attention. it's a little late but really you need to wake up.
you're playing semantics game again, sorry, not interested
good night
so, we agreed on the fact that you kept denying. and no, it has nothing to do with my beliefs.
we really didn't need all these games/tricks to finally admit a simple fact, an ethical debate would be appreciated.
Thanks
have a good night
it's actually more, but you didn't address the point. the point is randomness vs. purpose. if the changes are random/nononpurposeful, then the majority would be random damages/errors. why the vast majority are "benign"? mutations are not random errors; mutations are directed beneficial...
"The morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record" is a fact, I stated my reasons numerous times, your mere denial doesn’t cut it. If you don’t agree, demonstrate your reasons.
The real question in this context is not how many mutations but rather how many non-beneficial or harmful mutations and how many beneficial mutations? The claim of endless random non-beneficial mutation that would allow a beneficial mutation to emerge accidentally is false. DNA replication...
The predictions of gradualism and random change are contradictory to the real-world evidence.
You fail to understand the magnitude of the prediction, what it entails and the rule of the statistical significance of evidence to establish a valid inference.
You don’t even understand what...
Yes, it’s irrelevant and your 2 billion claim was wrong.
You didn’t get it. You just demonstrated my point. Everything you said is an unevidenced speculation. Even your irrelevant speculation is logically flawed.
If LUCA came from first life A, then all life came from A. if this is the case...
wishful thinking. I'm not concerned whether you think it's the strongest or weakest evidence. I'm only stating the fact about the morphological discontinuity/sudden jumps in the fossil record. your denial wouldn't change it.
Identify it
The context is consciousness.
It was a response to Cladking’s comment in # 2669 about ignoring consciousness as a component of life.
Demonstrate it.
false, can you identify a single organ of a living organism that doesn’t have a purpose? Just remember unknown function ≠ no...
In # 2723 you claimed, “There could be several possible sources of first life". I asked you to identify it and you responded in # 2741 that you identified them multiple times. Again, you didn’t.
If you can enter an honest discussion, then, prove me wrong and provide the post number or provide...
not really, it's a false oversimplification, with respect to the massive addition of genetic information, the jumps are more like 1 to 1000000000. the gap is massive.