RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
January 22, 2019 at 4:16 am
(This post was last modified: January 22, 2019 at 4:19 am by T0 Th3 M4X.)
(January 22, 2019 at 3:54 am)pocaracas Wrote:(January 22, 2019 at 2:41 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Not paying for a wild goose chase of what someone claims exists. It's not bias against atheists though. I'm the same way for people trying to sell me tickets to Bigfoot expeditions. They think they're right too, and maybe they are, but don't care as long as the picture is fuzzy that they are shaking in front of me.
The Nature journal is one of the most prestigious scientific journals for a reason, don't you think?
But anyway, if you're only interested in the evolutionary part of biology, go here: https://www.nature.com/subjects/evolution
If you can't be arsed to pay, go to a library, they usually have these subscriptions and let you search the full catalog.
You're the one asking for all the evidence, man. I'm showing you one place where the best evidence is.
No one can help you much beyond this...
No problem with the journal. But if someone says something is in it, then they should provide the reference. If not, no point. What have they found that they think is relevant and others should know? Isn't that the basis even for writing journal material? We include our sources so people can follow us without having to dig through an entire stack of science journals.
I don't need help. I need proof. If the proof is there, then that will be sufficient.
(January 22, 2019 at 4:15 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:(January 22, 2019 at 3:54 am)pocaracas Wrote: You're the one asking for all the evidence, man. I'm showing you one place where the best evidence is.
No one can help you much beyond this...
The weird thing is tha M4X has posted on previous occasions that "It's not real evidence."
Not sure if any one managed to stay yht course of that rabbit hole to get to the bottom/defiiton of what ever 'Real' evidence even was.
Not at work.
What's not real evidence? It's not that something isn't "real evidence", but it's not conclusive. Maybe that's what you're referring to. If something isn't conclusive, then it's a may, but also a maybe not. If something is conclusive, then I should be able to follow what you've looked at and come to the same conclusion through the same process/methodology. I don't care about the smoke. I care about what is or isn't. If you don't know for sure, then how am I supposed to know for sure?
