no. you are wrong.
Quote from: quadzHas this been proven?
Has this been proven?
As I recall, you went with the same "there's not enough information" hedge.If that's true (meaning, if I've remembered that exchange correctly) then there's little point in talking about what we've learned about how biological life works, if you don't even accept the scientific explanation for thunder being able to stand on its own without god's help.
quadz, if you are the scientist here, can you answer how scientific misconduct happens?
Quote from: quadzAs I recall, you went with the same "there's not enough information" hedge.If that's true (meaning, if I've remembered that exchange correctly) then there's little point in talking about what we've learned about how biological life works, if you don't even accept the scientific explanation for thunder being able to stand on its own without god's help.i don't think we know who or what created life, so it doesn't mean much to me that there are or might be many earth like planets.
Well I found a great quote today:
No matter how much we've discovered about the biological and chemical engines of life, you seem to want to disregard the details and fall back on variations of your, "it would be incomprehensible" routine.
I have a very hard time trying to envision that every living system from humans to trees to bacteria are all the result of "random modeling" I suppose you could say.
if you made a case for life being on other planets, i'd agree with you.
I'm sorry, but that did not make sense to me, natural selection is not a "random process", but the change in genetic code being controlled by a process seeking an intelligent change isn't? ...