Yeah Nabu has some really good feats, like holding off a bloodlusted Spectre.
Yeah Nabu has some really good feats, like holding off a bloodlusted Spectre.
Leaning towards team Marvel. But I'm not too familiar with Nabu.
Well Nabu is the most powerful Lord of Order, and one of the most powerful magical beings in DC. But, honestly I'm not a huge expert on his feats... maybe @beatboks1 can help us with some feats and opinion on this fight?
Being published in a peer-reviewed journal does not make a difference; the probability argument against it makes logical scientific sense; the odds are just against it; my post explained this in logical detail. There are many possible amino acids and nucleic acids that random chemistry can form, yet only 20 amino acids are required in biological molecules and only 5 nucleic acids are required in biological molecules; they are required to be in specific arrangements; and than it's a matter that the molecules have to operate in a very unique manner in the cells to create different species of life forms.
Being published in a peer-reviewed journal does make a difference, it shows that it has been examined by people who are experts in the field. You have no way to look at biological evidence and arguments and know that they are valid because you're not an expert in biology. Neither am I, which is why I require peer-review or some scientific concensus before I even consider your claims.
I'm not sure why you dont understand this. Either you're an expert and can tell us exactly why something fails in Evolution, or you're not. If you're not, then you can either go with the scientific consensus or you're cherry-picking which will only lead to confirmation bias.
Your "probability" argument in invalid because you ignore the factors of time and space. Time because there are hundreds of millions of years for the process to work, and space because there is an entire planet's surface for it to work in. You would understand this if you actually read credible science... which deals with this very topic. Again, the fact that you're making this argument demonstrates that you're not an expert in this field and that the stuff you're reading is completely ignorant of the applicable science.
Creation websites are pointing out the problems with evolution through science; the issue is very different from a comparison between astronomy and astrology; you can't possibly be serious by putting the two in this context; if you really believe that, than you have to know that you're deluding yourself; judging from some of your posts, I see you stop studying when you have an objection to the way something is being presented (e.g. just earlier in this very thread); if you're doing that, than you're missing out on the credible science being presented that contradict the ideas being spread as if there is nothing else to it; I'm not trying to force the science to fit my view, and neither are the creation scientists; trying to force the science to fit their world view would have been the next step, but the science created from experimentation and observation is actually what's disputing the alternative concept of evolution and old Earth. If you look at these sources that I present, you'll see credible science that tells us that there are no transitional life forms supporting evolution that have been found (e.g. you may hear Richard Dawkins say this in a flash during debates but it actually is not true or, at best, a distortion of the real findings); that's one of the main holding points that the creation scientists present against evolution and the arguments against it are very scientifically sound and logical (e.g. it's literally as simple as whether transitional life forms exists or don't); I addressed DNA in the very post that I used to present chemistry supporting the likelihood of creation; DNA has to work in cooperation with proteins, where the Miller experiment failed; and than there has to be very specific amino acids and nucleic acids; biologists say certain things about DNA, but the chemistry breaks down in this important way that breaks down the biologists' attempted explanation for a specific observation; the chemistry has to add up too; the post also presented the flaws with fossils; those areas are actually the very problems with making evolution flow smoothly; and, when I went to view the history of the Earth, I was searching for information supporting views on the plausibility of evolution; the search is showing quite a few breakdowns, there's lots of pieces that need to be explained but does not exist. Looking at the science presented by creation scientists and you'd know that we don't even have to start diluting ourselves, despite what you're trying to imply; it's a matter of seriously studying all of the data.
I have read the stuff in these Creationist websites and they are not "credible science". There's just no point in me debunking them point-by-point because there's already sites that do that. The problem is that since you choose to cherry-pick and read only Creationist sites, you ignore the sites that debunk that stuff.
You're deluded if you think that Creationists are not trying to force science to fit their views. That's their entire thing. That's why they rebranded "Creationism" as "Intelligent Design" and try to push it into science classes. This is not my opinion, this is a fact that's been verified in court.
Yes there are transitional forms... and I'm tired of pointing this out.
There's no point in discussing this any further. You're unwilling to look at actual science and keep insisting on making arguments about a subject that you're not familiar with and that are easily refuted by that science... biology. Your insistence that Creationism and "Creation science" is actual science is so wrong as to be laughable.
I wonder if the OP switches photos because if you look at the first set of posts it seems to be a train of blue and black and then in a row the next set of posters say white and gold.
I actually see it as both "gold and white" and "black and blue" on different viewings. I don't mean in an overlapping sort of way, like I can kind of see brownish and bluish white, but in the way that when I see it as black and blue, I get really critical with senses as far as questioning how I could see it as white and gold earlier and then on the other occasions where I see white and gold, I question my senses the same way and then also drag the image of the screen to make sure its not a GIF and just slowly switching back and forth between photo manipulated versions.
Yeah, it's interesting. I've heard of people who are able to switch the way they see it... sometimes white/gold and then they can switch and it's blue/black. Freaky! I wish I could do that, it sounds...
And you know this... how?
Also, you think that scientists havent thought about this... why?
But, feel free to publish this in a peer-reviewed journal and then come to me when that's done.
What is it about evolution that you think has been thoroughly tested? The information that I'm getting is that experiments are being devised to test evolution, but the theory is not panning out as predicted; such surprising results are what's creating a platform for creation scientists.
And where are you getting your information? If the answer is from Creationist websites then I'd say that's the problem. If you want to know what the current state of Evolutionary science is then go to biologists and the scientific literature. Or, you can get a degree and start doing your own research on the subject.
Evolution has been thoroughly tested in many ways. The nice thing about scientific theories (as opposed to something like pseudo-science or religion) is that theories make clear predictions that can be tested. When we look at DNA, the fossil record, anatomy, transitional forms, etc, etc, everything we find confirms the predictions of Evolution. Here's a great site detailing a lot of this stuff:
If you want to really understand Evolution and why it's correct, then go to science. If you dont, you can keep reading Creationist web sites and watching Creationist videos. It's no different from trying to learn about Astronomy and argue about it by reading Astrology. One is a science based on observation and a process for challenging and confirming data, theories, and methodology, and the other is not.
@willpayton: so you call me out trolling? It may change the way we percieve colour but no it dosent change the colour end of, and my brain is more complex to fool for simple tricks such as brightness and context simple minds can be easily swayed though
How we perceive colors and how we judge them are basically the same things. It comes down to what the brain thinks it's seeing rather than what light comes into the eyes. Everything that comes into the eyes is processed in some way. There is no such thing as a "simple" or "complex" mind. If there were, then seeing a color just as it comes into the eye would be the "simple" way for the brain to deal with it... which apparently is what you'e claiming to have.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment