Why does it mean that to be an atheist and a science person as well...................that you become dishonest.
Its like as soon as the science person decides to be an atheist............that their intelligence is plucked from their body and they become instantly dishonest.
Science shall never create life................( and why cant science create life?)
Because life is not made of atoms.
If life is not made of atoms how could it be possible to create life???????
IT IS NOT POSSIBLE........and dishonest science cannot admit that.
So there is a million silly scientists out there all trying to created life with atoms.
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by DasaScientific method involves empiricism. The authority that scientists take for their statements is experiment. If they are unable to create life that means that the notion that life can be created in a laboratory is unproven, although not refuted as it may become possible in the future. Your statement, that life is "more than just atoms", however, requires some justification. Why are we to believe that there is no purely material explanation for life?
Why does it mean that to be an atheist and a science person as well...................that you become dishonest.
Its like as soon as the science person decides to be an atheist............that their intelligence is plucked from their body and they become instantly dishonest.
Science shall never create life................( and why cant science create life ...[text shortened]... mit that.
So there is a million silly scientists out there trying to created life with atoms.
Just as an aside, if scientists were to create life in the laboratory then it would be a living thing creating a living thing. Which could hardly be described as abiogenesis, but would seem to confirm the theory of its possibility.
28 Mar 15
From Dasa's RHP profile:
* Important: Please ignore all of my public forum postings from about July10th 2010 back to the beginning of postings. (or in other words about the first 24 pages of postings) give or take a few.
* It was not the current Dasa speaking at the time - but someone else.
So which Dasa is currently communicating? Can you switch which of your personalities post on this forum? Is there one who's less irritating than the one before us?
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by vivifyThis current Dasa is the one who proposed that all Muslim men in the world be executed.
From Dasa's RHP profile:
* Important: Please ignore all of my public forum postings from about July10th 2010 back to the beginning of postings. (or in other words about the first 24 pages of postings) give or take a few.
* It was not the current Dasa speaking at the time - but someone else.
So which Dasa is currently communicating? Can you switch whi ...[text shortened]... ur personalities post on this forum? Is there one who's less irritating than the one before us?
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by FMFNo one has yet proposed any reasonable method to deal with the problem of Muslim terrorism. Dasa only proposed this idea out of desperation in wanting to stop Muslim terrorism. I am sure he would settle for a less drastic approach if it could be shown to truly work.
This current Dasa is the one who proposed that all Muslim men in the world be executed.
28 Mar 15
Originally posted by Great King Rat
You are using the word dishonest the wrong way.
Retractions of dishonest scientific papers rose 1,900% in nine years
Studies suggest that a majority of papers are retracted due to deliberate falsification by researchers, rather than simple mistakes
Fabrication is perhaps the most egregious and difficult-to-detect form of fraud, consisting of reporting completely made-up data. Zietman notes that reports of fabrication are incredibly difficult to investigate, as it often comes down to one researcher's word against another's.
Falsification consists of either manipulating the methodology of the study in order to guarantee a certain result or of omitting or changing data after the completion of a study.
http://www.naturalnews.com/044806_study_retractions_scientific_papers_academic_dishonesty.html
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsSpeaking of dishonest, here is a site called 'creation ministries' that should be your guide when you put out your bogus young Earth truly stupid video's:
[quote]Retractions of [b]dishonest scientific papers rose 1,900% in nine years
Studies suggest that a majority of papers are retracted due to deliberate falsification by researchers, rather than simple mistakes
Fabrication is perhaps the most egregious and difficult-to-detect form of fraud, consisting of reporting completely made-up data. Zietman n ...[text shortened]...
http://www.naturalnews.com/044806_study_retractions_scientific_papers_academic_dishonesty.html[/b]
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
Maybe after reading all the words on this site you will come up with much better bogus young Earth creationist video's.
29 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseDo you use that website for your guide to truth?
Speaking of dishonest, here is a site called 'creation ministries' that should be your guide when you put out your bogus young Earth truly stupid video's:
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
Maybe after reading all the words on this site you will come up with much better bogus young Earth creationist video's.
30 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe answer is simple.
Scientific method involves empiricism. The authority that scientists take for their statements is experiment. If they are unable to create life that means that the notion that life can be created in a laboratory is unproven, although not refuted as it may become possible in the future. Your statement, that life is "more than just atoms", however, requ ...[text shortened]... uld hardly be described as abiogenesis, but would seem to confirm the theory of its possibility.
Apparently according to science .......it took a mere accident for life to be created by a lightning flash and a puddle of primordial soup.
So remember that science can imitate a flash and they have all the chemicals at hand.
If a simple accident can create life .........then a thousand phd. scientists should be able to do it.
And you cannot use the excuse that it took a long long time (because it didn't.....
According to scientific theory ........It is suppose to have happened in an instant with that flash)
It is evolution that is supposed to take a long long time (and not the appearance of life)
So why hasn,t science created life (if a dumb accident can do it?)