Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ghostrider
If you base your science on your stomach instead of your brain then it doesn't sound like any of your family's science rubbed off on you.

I hope you are not implying that "gut feelings" are irrevelant.

Your hopes have been dashed in this case. I am not just *implying* that "gut feelings" are irrelevant, but I am *stating* that "gut feelings" are not a rational means to arrive at scientific conclusions. If more people actually studied microbiology, these threads would be far shorter. And if cells were "intelligently designed" then the designer needs some remedial training for they are models of inefficiency, duplicity of function, are wholly insecure, and are enormously information intensive.

Humans will be designing our own cells in a few years, and they will borrow from nature, but will also VASTLY improve upon so called "intelligent" design.

jas3
14 posted on 12/08/2006 9:32:42 AM PST by jas3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: jas3
So you are saying we as the "Intelligent Designer" can do a much better job, LOL.
22 posted on 12/08/2006 10:06:05 AM PST by WhatsItAllAbout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: jas3
I am not just *implying* that "gut feelings" are irrelevant, but I am *stating* that "gut feelings" are not a rational means to arrive at scientific conclusions. If more people actually studied microbiology, these threads would be far shorter.

For the record, I am trained in Microbiology/Bacteriology. I am also trained to broaden my view and not to focus narrowly on what are perceived to be "knowns." If you are trained in science, then you should know that a great many discoveries started out as "gut feelings" or a hypothesis based upon an analysis of factual data.

And if cells were "intelligently designed" then the designer needs some remedial training for they are models of inefficiency, duplicity of function, are wholly insecure, and are enormously information intensive.

Talk about a narrow focus - whew!

Humans will be designing our own cells in a few years, and they will borrow from nature, but will also VASTLY improve upon so called "intelligent" design

It is certainly conceivable, and just possibly as in the case of breast milk, humans may find out at a later date that there was more than they originally thought. This is precisely why one should maintain a broad view and not focus narrowly on what are perceived to be "knowns."

28 posted on 12/08/2006 10:24:26 AM PST by ghostrider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: jas3

"And if cells were "intelligently designed" then the designer needs some remedial training for they are models of inefficiency, duplicity of function, are wholly insecure, and are enormously information intensive."


See, there you go! You are not making statements or drawing scientific conclusions, yourself!

You are, in fact, making statements about how you believe God must behave. You are denying that there is a creator OF A CERTAIN TYPE!

You are messing with the metaphysics, not the science. You really need to be honest about this, at least with your self, since I suspect you will deny to me that you are doing this.


50 posted on 12/08/2006 11:31:05 AM PST by sleepy_hollow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson