As mere mortals mankind knows nothing.
Does that mean you have evidence for the existence of immortals?
now we all have heard how the universe is composed of matter and space.
and we always here of how it had a beginning.
but really what could have begun it?
As mere mortals mankind knows nothing.
Does that mean you have evidence for the existence of immortals?
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Come on Vidqun, why should anyone follow your advice? why should anyone believe anything you have to say?
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Come on Vidqun you can do it, have a go at actually answering a question!
why should anyone believe what you have to say about micro-biology?
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Answering any of my questions would be a start because you didn't answer really answer my last question either did you?
I rather suspect that you know you didn't answer it and are hoping that using a very specific example will deflect away from that.
I will ask another question, why should anyone believe what you have to say about micro-biology?
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
Your answer is a great example of someone who has only a superficial knowledge of evolution, your own quote highlights what you are missing!
Change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (my emphasis)
It is precisely the sort of generational changes (or adaptation) that you are talking about that eventually lead to new species, evolution does not state that one such change makes a new species.
If you were a scientist you would be wondering what happens to those changes over time and the effect they have on the classification of those species.
With all your expertise how would you suggest we positively identify antibiotic resistant bacteria?
You still haven't answered either of my previous questions.
atheist delusion.
just want to know what the ex jw community thinks about this video and also offer my pov.
the video was actually an advertisement on here.
And if we find out they are masquerading as atheists we convene a secret meeting of atheists and call the offender in, wherein we take back their Spock ears and refuse to respond to the offender's live long and prosper fist bump.
DJS Shhhh, don't tell everyone they'll all want to come along!
atheist delusion.
just want to know what the ex jw community thinks about this video and also offer my pov.
the video was actually an advertisement on here.
Now personally, I think that the entire concept of atheism is a bit of a joke.
But I'm not going to disrespect other peoples beliefs
Wow, together in one post, now what did Jesus tell you to do in Matthew 5:39?
If you can provide empirical evidence of god then please do so.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
I am a qualified Medical Microbiologist with Anatomy, Physiology and Microbiology as majors.
yes I was a glorified technician, that's all. I have never claimed otherwise.
You used your alleged qualifications to suggest that you had studied the topic being discussed, people are only questioning your claims because your comments betray a severe lack of understanding of the scientific method, no understanding of the basics of a well proven subject like evolution (your misunderstanding of the subject is that of a layperson not someone who has a scientific background) and an inability to make sound reasoned argument for your point instead relying solely on logical fallacies.
You still haven't answered my first question by the way.
The problem with M. tuberculosis is that it is highly contagious and very dangerous. Laboratory personel use a reverse vapour cuboard, which is sealed and sucks out the air away from the person working with the sputums. Recently resistant strains have developed. All antibiotic treatment fails. (sic) (my emphasis)
What you mean it has evolved? Wow, almost as if evolution is the scientific theory that underpins all biology.
If however god is the designer of all things then he designed tuberculosis to do what it does and he clearly designed it to "develop" into new strains. So I ask again who are you to try and help treat something that god has designed. I am asking you as a believer how you justify your belief when it contradicts your previous actions.
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
All that tells me is that you were a lab technician and worse, one who clearly has no knowledge of why you were doing the procedures asked since you still seem to have no clue about the scientific method.
You never answered my question; what is the point of doing science if your answer to everything is 'goddidit'
As an additional question who are you to be interfering with god's plan by identifying microorganisms under a microscope?
arguing with those who reject scientific evidence can be like arguing about football; just as angry and passionate, but the goalposts keep moving, and one team doesn't exist.. read more here....
English is not my mother tongue so I've got to check spelling
So, I ask again, what do you expect a Microbiologist to be?
That would explain the use of an online dictionary but not the use of wikipedia for a definition of your profession.
I would expect a real scientist to have a good understanding of basic scientific principles and in the case of a microbiologist to have an excellent knowledge of the scientific theory that underpins all of biology. I would also expect a scientist to be very invested in the principle of the scientific process and the value of empirical evidence. If you were a real scientist then you wouldn't be declaring on a public forum that abiogenesis and evolution is impossible. After all if that is true why bother doing science?