Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just my way of indicating how irrelevant she has become.
It's your desperate attempt to inflate a bogus and derailed argument.
Wrong , you already admitted living organisms come from other living organisms now where did life come from ?
Omigosh!!! Are you serious right now?? I have been admitting this all along and stating it is the same predicament naturalism and darwinism are in!! Which now you decide to admit?fWhat? You make little sense.
The blind watchmaker analogy is an old, stale argument from analogy that has been refuted over and over and over again.
WE KNOW the watch was designed because we have evidence it was designed, because we built the fucking thing. We don't have evidence that anything else was designed. It's really simple, yet creationists continually reach for conclusions they can't get to with sound logic.
Then why do you rule out the designer of biological organisms that are much more complex then the watch ?
I don't rule anything out. If there was somehow evidence of an intelligent designer, I would consider it. However, considering you have no evidence of this unseen designer, and it possesses no ontology, it is a useless concept which is merely used to disguise your creationism, and as of yet, there has not been a single supernatural cause witnessed in this universe that there is evidence of. So, I am justified in maintaining metaphysical naturalism, even though, admittedly, this is inductively derived. Unlike UR, I have no problem admitting this.
...
Oh no, not your silly pretensions that you had any training in biology!If there being a lack of evidence is your standard for determining what is plausible, then you have to ditch intelligent design right now since you have even less evidence.
Because there is evidence that suggests abiogenesis is very plausible, such as the existence of organic compounds in abundance all over the universe, their ability to form on the proto-earth confirmed by the Miller-Urey experiments and subsequent others, and their existence on meteorites, proving they are abundant elsewhere. Why does this seem so impossible to you? Oh, that's right, because you think it shoves your god out of the way. In sense, all this is, is one big squabble for intellectual real estate for you.
Oh boy not the miller urey experiment again
Under all the right conditions they could not produce a cell that could reproduce itself. Nobody knew the conditions of the enviornment when this supposedly happened.
If this experiment acheived what you think it did there would be no argument.
the best you could do is call lie and name call!?another false and childish gay slur!Seriously??? How is this gay if Hollie is a woman? Do you know of any guys named Hollie? Plus, when she was pressed on the other forum about her sex, she responded not "I am man". She responded, "I am of the male persuasion." So let me get this straight. If Hollie is woman who thinks she's a man and she gives you a back rub, is that gay?
And yet another dodge and failed answered question from the angry fundie.
You pre-suppose a magical designer is required for biological organisms yet there is no reason to assume such a requirement. There is even less reason to presume your gawds did it.
By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
the best you could do is call lie and name call!?another false and childish gay slur!
And yet another dodge and failed answered question from the angry fundie.
On the contrary, it's your lack of imagination which keeps a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. Your attitudes seem precisely in concert with those of the Christian church of only a few centuries ago when science and knowledge were deemed by christianity to be an insidious threat.What a vivid imagination.
Well atleast you admit what you believe is because of a vivid imagination.
By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
It's only reasonable to question the veracity of your claim to have had some association with biology when you describe the cancer cell as "abnormal".The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
Hollie cancer cells are abnormal cells that break off and spread and do not die off when they are suppose to like normal cells. They cling to each other forming tumors. The point is Hollie living organisms come from other living organisms can you show otherwise ?
And yes, we can state the obvious that living organisms come from other living organisms at least as we have experience so far. Nothing in the preceding comment would negate the potential for abiogenesis some 3.5 billion years ago. Similarly, as humanities only experience with life is confined to biology existing on this planet, your worldview is constrained by a partisan religious view that was only recently dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages. Let's face it, the likely (eventual) discovery of life outside or possibly inside this solar system would be utterly devastating to the christian religious articles. You do realize that space exploration began only about 60 years ago, right?
How many lives were destroyed by the Christian church as recently as 400 years ago when scientists began to challenge church doctrine in regards to the physical solar system.
On the contrary, it's your lack of imagination which keeps a yolk of fear and superstition around your neck. Your attitudes seem precisely in concert with those of the Christian church of only a few centuries ago when science and knowledge were deemed by christianity to be an insidious threat.
Well atleast you admit what you believe is because of a vivid imagination.
Not at all. I'm just able to understand that policies put in place by christianity many centuries ago are now irrelevant and superceded by knowledge. That you choose to cower in fear before some human conception of an angry deity is your issue to come to terms with.
What does that have to do with what I said? Are these concepts I am discussing entirely over your head? You keep on bringing the discussion back to something that has nothing to do with what I was getting at. Of course I haven't seen this. I don't see the relevance of this obvious fact.
Why waste your time trying to figure how non life produced life when there is no evidence to support the thought ?
What you sweepingly miss is that the premise of biological life erupting from the basic chemical compounds that make up all life is entirely possible. All of the chemical elements that constitute biological life exist in the universe. The most basic compounds of biological life are in abundance in the cosmos.
As is routine, we're left with the christian fundies insisting their consolidation of all the gawds that preceded their gawds are somehow, by magical means they cannot discern or fathom, are now "the" designer gawds of choice for reasons which are not even particularly intuitive.
what the fuck would you know about proper?here we go ...Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.
If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.
it depends on what you mean by bias ?
I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.
what the fuck would you know about proper?here we go ...
it depends on what you mean by bias ?
I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.
you cherry picked the post.
then made not funny been done joke..
the folks at rehab must love you.
You do crack yourself up. You just make no sense.By seeing the working of cells it is easy to believe that they did not come in to existence by an undirected source.
The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
People need to stop wit the religious & anti religious crap and start supporting their constitution.
what the fuck would you know about proper?here we go ...
it depends on what you mean by bias ?
I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.
you cherry picked the post.
then made not funny been done joke..
the folks at rehab must love you.
you forgot the link ...these are not your wordsyes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.You are so wrong and you do not know what I hold. Once again you do not have to hold a Phd to do the work of a molecular biologist. You are simply talking out your rear again.
Should You Get a Ph.D.? Mike the Mad Biologist
doing the "work" of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
still waiting on that paper .
How do you not understand this ?
I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years Ive been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all its a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side cant figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what Im already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.
My very short answer: no.
If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another masters degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some credentialing value*.
The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesnt sound like thats what the reader wants to do.
To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:
1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond somewhat interesting.
2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.
3) A desire to live the life of the mindyou have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.
4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).
I would also add that Ive seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They havent been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.
*When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), Im inclined to agree with Matthew Shaws argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.
**To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard ones ability to become a normal adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living ones life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you dont know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.
Noun
S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)
Definition for molecular biologist:
Web definitions:
a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.
So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.
The working of the cancer cell lead you to that? A wonder to behold.
Your "feelings" are inadequate as a means to an end for a gawd conclusion. The point is, your belief in a particular collection of gawds was simply happenstance; a function of your parentage and place of birth.
Your "feelings" based tenets regarding your gawds are completely unreliable in terms of offering the most basic of proofs. That is why the Christian creationist movement is intellectually bankrupt in terms of positive evidence for the gawds.
Do you realize what you are saying? Cancer cells are the result of copying errors or...wait for it... mutations!! Darwin is evil because he caused cancer.
People need to stop wit the religious & anti religious crap and start supporting their constitution.
you forgot the link ...these are not your wordsyes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
doing the "work" of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
still waiting on that paper .
How do you not understand this ?
I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years Ive been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all its a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side cant figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what Im already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.
My very short answer: no.
If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another masters degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some credentialing value*.
The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesnt sound like thats what the reader wants to do.
To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:
1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond somewhat interesting.
2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.
3) A desire to live the life of the mindyou have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.
4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).
I would also add that Ive seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They havent been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.
*When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), Im inclined to agree with Matthew Shaws argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.
**To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard ones ability to become a normal adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living ones life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you dont know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.
Noun
S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)
Definition for molecular biologist:
Web definitions:
a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.
So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.
but to answer your question you're a poser playing at being a biologist. and failing.
