Intelligent Design is not creationism

Just as I thought, you can't find a link...

I doubt you will also find a link of a real biologist citing Heisenberg's principle as the "cause" of biological changes.

Too funny....

Heisenberg is probably rolling over in his grave just thinking about hacks like you who misuse his science in favor of quackery...

Quote from john dough:

Why would I provide you with a link to such a quote, when in your next paragraph, you dismiss the idea as meaningless to your position (obviously, just in case I were to actually provide you with such a quote -- which I could, but I won't bother -- you wouldn't read it anyway).

Uncertainty is a scientifically estabilished reality that is beyond reasonable dispute. The laws of probability provide all the scientific background necessary to prove evolution is the product of random mutation and natural selection (along with gene shift and recombination, etc.). That these facts may not fit well with your nonsensical metaphysical delusion about God manifesting ministers of the universe from pure potentiality is your personal problem -- not mine.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Oh, and by the way, uncertainty doesn't mean non design...the uncertainty may very well be by design, in the same way that a computer can generate a table of random numbers...
More...
absolutely zizzz, and congrats for finally getting there... the world is indeed and to a significant extent random by design

i knew u cld do it ;-)
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Continuously stating that chance is a cause will not render it true...
More...
just to clear this up... nobody other than you here was claiming that "chance is a cause"... primarily since chance = non-causal...

hope this helps...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Just as I thought, you can't find a link...

I doubt you will also find a link of a real biologist citing Heisenberg's principle as the "cause" of biological changes.

Too funny....

Heisenberg is probably rolling over in his grave just thinking about hacks like you who misuse his science in favor of quackery...
More...

"Laugh while you can, monkey boy." -- John Lithgow, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" MGM, Inc. (1984)

Probability and statistics underly the entire study of genetics. Every "real" biologist uses this information routinely.

As for uncertainty principle and biological change, there are dozens of peer-reviewed publications. A few "random" samples:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden_and_al-khalili.pdf

http://bmc.ub.uni-potsdam.de/1742-4682-2-40/1742-4682-2-40.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1430986

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03810.x

I won't bother asking for an apology, because I'm "certain" that you will come up with some massive rationalization as to why each of the above citations is unsatisfactory.

And, I await that moment with an overwhelming sense of total boredom. So hurry up.
 
Quote from john dough:

And, I await that moment with an overwhelming sense of total boredom. So hurry up.
More...

WARNING: ASSERTION RISK

THERE IS A CATEGORY 4 ASSERTION WARNING IN THIS AREA. THERE IS AN ADDED RISK OF RATIONALIZATION, OBFUSCATION, INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AND AN EXTREMELY HIGH RISK OF EVASION. FREE THINKERS AND OTHER HONEST PEOPLE SHOULD PROCEED WITH CAUTION.
 
I see no work of physicists commenting on biological processes, just more hack biologists who misuse Heisenberg's work on a quantum particle/wave level to rationalize their own preconceived notions on a macro level of biological changes...

Grasping at straws...no uncertainly in that...

I suppose this will be the excuse of science when it hits more and more roadblocks and unanswered questions as to why...Oh yeah, we can't figure it out, it is uncertain because we are measuring it, and our instruments are not perfect, so the instruments influence the results...so it must therefore be chance, because we can't be certain of our measurements.

Amazing that people actually buy into this crapola...

Oh man, the lengths people will go to to stay in ignorance and rationalization of their belief systems in the name of "science."



Quote from john dough:

"Laugh while you can, monkey boy." -- John Lithgow, "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai" MGM, Inc. (1984)

Probability and statistics underly the entire study of genetics. Every "real" biologist uses this information routinely.

As for uncertainty principle and biological change, there are dozens of peer-reviewed publications. A few "random" samples:

http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden_and_al-khalili.pdf

http://bmc.ub.uni-potsdam.de/1742-4682-2-40/1742-4682-2-40.pdf

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1430986

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2006.03810.x

I won't bother asking for an apology, because I'm "certain" that you will come up with some massive rationalization as to why each of the above citations is unsatisfactory.

And, I await that moment with an overwhelming sense of total boredom. So hurry up.
More...
 
too funny... isnt that exactly what you were asking for though?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Just as I thought, you can't find a link...

I doubt you will also find a link of a real biologist citing Heisenberg's principle as the "cause" of biological changes.

Too funny....
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I see no work of physicists commenting on biological processes, just more hack biologists who misuse Heisenberg's work on a quantum particle/wave level to rationalize their own preconceived notions on a macro level of biological changes...
More...

Yes, anyone reading your posts can tell you are qualified to comment on quantum theory.

Especially the 'quantum particle/wave level'.

Ah yes.... the old 'quantum particle/wave level'.

Isn't that a carpenter's tool?

lol....
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

I see no work of physicists commenting on biological processes, just more hack biologists who misuse Heisenberg's work on a quantum particle/wave level to rationalize their own preconceived notions on a macro level of biological changes...
More...

Evidently the lack of a physicist among the article's authors is somehow significant, as you've chosen to bold it in your response.

But, wait. Two of the four cited articles are co-authored by physicists.

So, I guess your failure to see the work of physicists is your failure, and your failure alone.
 
Quote from john dough:

Evidently the lack of a physicst among the article's authors is somehow significant, as you've chosen to bold it in your response.

But, wait. Two of the four cited articles are co-authored by physicists.

So, I guess your failure to see the work of physicsts is your failure, and your failure alone.
More...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!!


Oh my God.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top