|
nothing more, nothing less.
>It wasn't my intentions to prove that article false. I was >just showing that the researching methods of Nature articles >have been shown to be faulty before.
Those articles were challenged very shortly after they were published, within a matter of several months tops; the Buchnera paper was published 3 years ago - if the research methods were likewise faulty, it would've been challenged in the same manner a long time ago.
>No, it was supposed to draw parallels of proclaiming things >without definite proof.
Human evolution is not based merely on apes and man being in the same order, just as Buchnera evolution is not based on it merely being in the same order as E. coli - so you are drawing parallels to irrelevant points.
>No, they're mythical as well (get a dictionary)...it's just >that they were created. But here's a thought, before you >attack what you assume to be my beliefs. Let me reveal them >to you first, you'll seem less of an ass, then to attack >something I've never said or hinted at.
I was referring to you calling our common ancestor with primates "mythical", as if all the scientific evidence supporting this were on the same standing as an old biblical fairy tale - you are the one making an ass out of yourself by posing your creationist nonsense as being scientific.
>Are paintings an evolution...or are they creations? An >artist will leave their impression on a piece of art. >Multiple pieces of art created by the same artist will share >the same impression. This impression, whatever it may be, >is how you seperate the works that were done by this artist >from the works done by another. > >You call it evolution...I call it God's impression.
No, you deny that it is evolution and call it creationism. The "God's impression" thing is more along the lines of LK1 and others who reconcile God and evolution, not people like you who try to dismiss evolution as a sham and a myth.
>>Um, nobody is building quantum computers on the principles >>of an omniscient god... drugs are bad, mmmkay? > >Based on the principle of being ominiscient...not based on >an omniscient God. Reading is good, mmmkay?
Uh, that's not what you said, mmmkay?
>In a quantum computer a "bit" would hold both a zero and a >one at the same time. It would know every outcome...is >that not the definition of being omniscient?
no, it would not "know every outcome"; each qubit would just be able to hold multiple values at the same time via the principle of superposition - that is quantum physics, not omniscience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man." - The Dude
___________________
Mar-A-Lago delenda est
|