(February 20, 2016 at 2:13 pm)abaris Wrote: No, I won't, since you don't bother to answer the most simple questions. You fill your personal knowledge gaps with god. Fine by me and be my guest. What you fail to adress, just to give one example, is the level of peer reviews of apologist papers. How are they received by the scientific community?
You made a bold statement, so come on, lay your cards on the table.
It isn't God of the Gaps I don't know why you can't understand that. It is not that I am saying that God is responsible for every cellular interaction. I am saying that we understand how attenuation works. We understand how membrane proteins work. We understand how enhancer sequences work. We know how genes are expressed. It operates in ways that we can only compare with our own technology. Therefore it is based on what we DO know that we conclude it to be designed, not what we don't. And I'm not overly concerned with peer review. But if an ID article is published, you will just say that the publisher is wacko and ignore it. So if we can look at the evidence ourselves, then we do not need to base our conclusions solely on peer review. However, obviously peer review is an important part of science and making sure that experiments don't overlook potential factors that may disrup it, but it isn't everythin.
