Yes, without the non-contingent being, no contingent being is possible.
1) Definitions:
A) Possible being :
- Do not exist necessarily by its own nature.
- Contingent being.
- Caused being (a manifestation of an influence exerted by a cause).
- Has a beginning (didn’t always exist).
- May...
''“Gibberish, incompetence, Flowery prose, creationists, do not actually understand the things you pontificate on..”''!!!
Stop hiding behind your fallacious ad hominem, if you can’t think of any thing rational to say, its ok to stay quiet please. This doesn’t benefit anyone.
You’re delusional! you’re responding to #249, I didn’t mention anything about Mice protein in #249. Did I?
If you want citation for the mice protein that I mentioned before in # 175, here it is:
“Mice protein-encoding genes are 85% similar to humans."
Why Mouse Matters (genome.gov)
Because...
You keep jumping around. you ask for citation to confirm the 80% percentage in, # 228, you don’t wait for my citation, you verify that the 80% percentage is correct on your own then come back in # 242 to move the goalpost as usual to “HOW different the 80% different proteins are"
Its Ok, but...
Oversimplification of such an extremely complex process is a dishonest and misleading presentation.
DNA is the language of life. base pair (bp) is the unit of measurement of DNA, The amount or length of DNA is counted by using base pairs. The human genome contains about 3.2 billion base pairs...
This is a “False Dichotomy”. It’s not either/or. The failure of your logic to explain a system is not relevant to other alternatives that may or may not exist.
You talk to yourself a lot, you make claims by yourself and others whom you pose as presenting my side. You question and answer...
No not 100%, again, again, I said “80% of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees regardless of alleged similarity between humans and chimpanzees genome.” See the link below.
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees - ScienceDirect
if you don't...
It’s really simple, you did read, you didn't like it, you mentioned other papers but refused to cite any of it. You deceive yourself to convince others. If you want others to take you as honest, start with being honest with yourself.
Stop the ad hominem nonsense. Get real and stop the drama, I obviously support creation/intelligent design. Do you think it's a mystery for anyone else other than yourself? How is that an agenda any more than your fallacious nonsense approach to defend your own evolutionary views?
You ask a question in # 228 and then you answer yourself in # 231. You show everyone your failure to read the first line of the abstract. You admit that the title is misleading.
"Genomewide Comparison of DNA Sequences between Humans and Chimpanzees"
You did all the work for me, Thanks
Only one...
I appreciate that you rationally argue about what you believe is true and don’t rely on fallacious tactics to win an argument. It’s a quality that many are lacking.
We're not here to waste time and effort as opponents but as rational humans exchanging different perspectives for the benefit of...
I’ve seen some earlier discussion about consciousness. The problem of consciousness remains puzzling and controversial.
Science can establish that life/consciousness exists but beyond that it doesn’t provide a definition or an explanation of how life or consciousness may have possibly emerged...
Logical analysis of data (based on causality) that is collected through sense perception establishes the perceived reality/facts.
Collected data through sense perception doesn’t establish a sufficient disclosure of objective reality that independently lies outside the limits of...
Moving the goalposts, first to “Dogmatic Control” and then to “Virginia Steen McIntyre”, it’s a typical fallacious tactic to get the discussion off-track. I’m not interested to entertain it.
The Hueyatlaco archeological site controversy is well known, “Dogmatic Control” is a fact. Many would...
What's your favorite paper?
I mentioned the other published papers with varying but typically lower percentages of similarity than the alleged 98.8%. but again, you didn’t read.
Do you expect the published paper to talk about dogma directing the outcome?