your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
@Viviane well I know what my professor preached.
Often it's more about what you don't know than what you do.
Ruling things out as you build your theory comprised of other facts is absolutely part of the scientific process of defining a theory. I don't know where you studied but...
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
Confused by the "America" comment one given that many around the world clamor to attend Harvard, Berkley, Stanford, Yale among others every year.
Americans first to land on moon, created the internet, source of most technological advances today, Russia a close second.
This isn't about patriotism but to act as though U.S. schools are somehow not credited or to demean their statements is well...ignorant.
can i please ask people not to repeated signatures on their posts.. i have pm'd a few people directly with the request as i've noticed them but i guess the inevitable "explain why / show it's fair" means i need to make it publicly to all .... everyone's name and avatar is already displayed next to each post made so anything added at the bottom is really superfluous and just reduces readability on smaller devices where screen-real-estate is already at a premium.
if the layout is redesigned for mobile devices with the poster name at the bottom then it looks kind-of stupid (e.g.
"said simon - simon ...").
Been said but again these signatures are really bio's in short if I want to see your bio I should have to click on your avatar, a modal pops and I can read and close it.
There is zero need for a bio to be at the bottom of a post which simply takes up chars and lines.
With Si on this 200%.
i haven`t seen much if anything on the rio olympic games on this forum , i can`t believe their is so little interest in such a sporting event that is televised world wide.. i don`t get to watch everything , but events i do like to see when i can are,track and field ,gymnastics ,swimming , diving ,and their are a few other sports i will watch when they are on , especially if an australian is involved.. how about you ?
whats your favourite sport to watch ?.
has the "drug" issue affected your view of the games ?
A sport often missed that is really cool to watch is Kayaking believe it or not. Watched that one year and was like whoa this is really cool stuff.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
LOL @Viviane I'll take that as you have nothing better to say...and you're saying UC Berkley is wrong by the way....buy hey thx for playin'
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
@notsurewheretogo who are you speaking to? who said anything is guided?
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
I can't find it at my alma at the moment but UC Berkley should do just fine. The below is a common statement in just about any science related degree. It aligns with what I'm saying. It is not a war.
MISCONCEPTION: Science contradicts the existence of God.
CORRECTION: Because of some vocal individuals (both inside and outside of science) stridently declaring their beliefs, it's easy to get the impression that science and religion are at war. In fact, people of many different faiths and levels of scientific expertise see no contradiction at all between science and religion. Because science deals only with natural phenomena and explanations, it cannot support or contradict the existence ofsupernatural entities — like God. To learn more, visit our side trip Science and religion: Reconcilable differences.
reference: http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
@Viviane it's all about eliminating the possibilities. Ruling things out is a critical action of science. Where did u study?
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
The hard and fast line folks crack me up.
A good scientist will consider all possibilities not just the ones convenient for him.
1. Do I think we will know what this charge was that began the proto-chaining of life in my lifetime? NO
2. Because we cannot define what this charge was does that mean God did it? NO
3. Can we be absolute in our resolve as to whether Evolution, Creation, Crevolution are the result of this charge without knowing what in fact it was? NO
Outside of item one which is simply my opinion, if you disagree with either 2 or 3 you're not being honest and only considering possibilities which fit your narrative.
just an experiment to see if it's useful or not .... the likes and dislikes for posts are now rolled up to the topic so you can see whether a topic is mostly positive or negative (or maybe a battleground?).
with some 'decay' to the votes built in this might evolve into "most vibrant topics" based on more than just the number or recency of replies (ideally all will factor in).. ps: don't worry if some topic totals are wrong right now - i need to run a job to put some of them right..
+1
