Why do we need God this time?

[TFM]

Well, I agree. Let's focus on the topics.

[Gryzor]

Well, I'd compare you to Big Bang Theory's Sheldon except that it's only funny in fiction, not in real life.

Again, you just dismiss everyone else as ignorant while exalting yourself. This is... well, I don't know what, but it's certainly not a behavior of men out age. Add to that the fact that you still fail to explain why and where Darwin was wrong, and you might just be smearing walls with poo instead of being in a university.

Just another thing: I've got quite some expertise in some matters myself (as, I suspect, most of us in here). When someone who doesn't know asks me, I try my best to describe and analyze the issue. If I fail, it merely means I'm *not* as good as I thought. Just think about that...

And, of course, I replied to your 'arguments' (random statements do not constitute an argument; you better read up on your logic issues), and then you just said that you're the cleverest ever and we're dumb and ignorant. Way to go!

Gryzor, your behaviour is (even if I relly like you!) sometimes soooo anoying!!! You know nothing about evolution biology, whereas I work since 1992 in it! So you still think you are right? That's what I call the perfect example for being bullheaded and -excuse this, but you proove it- beeing narrow minded.
Instead of believing everything in _too old_ books, you rather should use your mind.

You just want to be right - always! But you're wrong here! So stop it now.

People like you are crippling sciences and give the chains of slavery to free thinking! You should start to open your mind for new ideas and stop bothering people who share some knowledge, which is yet not easiely accessible for everybody.

Darwin:1, Gryzor:-poor-, TFM:-sick of that ignorance-

And btw: If you accuse me for a panygeric of myself, it's not my fault if others don't perform as good as I do.

I _have_ provided arguments in form of an example before, so please read it first, and then start to answer.

I don't know about Crack, but it looks like you do 

[TFM]

Gryzor, you do well in insulting, but you lack any kind of argumentation. Shame on you!

You aren't able to understand my argumentation. I can't teach you molecular biology in one post. But I can try to boil it down for you:

The succession of genes on the DNA strands in E. coli is not random (see NCBI DNA database). But if Darwin would be right, then it *must* be random. And it is not random! So Darwin is wrong.

[fano]

Did Darwin spoke about DNA ?

As i understood about his thoery , DNA mutations append randomly , that's maybe a weak point.There are maybe some other factors, that is more probable than "intelligent design".(God is hidden somewhere between this two words, will you be able to find him?)

But for the other part ,  natural selection is based on the best adaptation for environement.The most adapted survive long enough to reproduce and transmits its DNA.Is this model obsolète ?

Beware about random and organisation, nothing proves this marvellous organisation is not the result of the natural coercition/pressure like some forms of carbon.

[Gryzor]

I am insulting? May I remind you that you posed (openly and through edited posts) as the Illuminated One, He Who Holds All True, and claimed that the rest of us cannot understand you so we may as well just bow to your opinion? Oh man...

Further to that, it's amazing how you managed to cram so many wrongs in a couple of sentences.

Fano, of course, is 100% correct. Darwin put forward the theory of evolution, not the theory of randomness. So, whether he was right on wrong on the random premise, this does not necessarily affect the truth of his overall breakthrough.

Expecting Darwin to distinguish between randomness and deterministic events, between true chaos and reliance on initial (and subsequent) conditions, is just plain silly[nb]and, as I said, I believe nothing is truly random anyhow[/nb]. See my Greeks/Sumerians/Freud argument. So dismissing him (and dissing him) out of hand is just a sign of ignorance and, of course, utter arrogance.

Furthermore, not only is your E.coli argument totally irrelevant, but you actually failed to show that it's not actually a random event - you just recited a complex process; but complex does not necessarily mean not random. Your analysis and 'proof' is an ex post facto fallacy and thus, quite un-scientific. If you meant something else, sorry, but you failed to show it.

Again, I don't believe anything is random. But it's not part of the discussion[nb]whether it's randomness behind the mutations that lead to evolution or specific reasons is irrelevant to the end result[/nb], and your choice of focus shows how little you understand about science and the philosophy behind it.

To get back to the matter at hand, I think there *is* some truth and hope of reconciliation in the theory of intelligent design, but it's merely a sidestep on the side of the believers towards the reality of science and does nothing to help prove the existence of God. It's just a concession that at least some of the science is true.

[AMSDOS]

Spoiler: ShowHide

Off Topic means exactly what it should mean Off Topic, a discussion about anything. This Topic bears certain interest to me because there's no such thing as an exact science, plus it's fun to mess around with Science and Sturr things up!! 

[AMSDOS]

Yes it's true that Random doesn't exist! Which is why I'd like the numbers for Lotto this week!