Graycoder:


And yet the goal post shiftings are responses to your posts. Look for a better and responsible way to gain points. You have been crying goal shifting in every post you've made.

So in your own world Vitalism is Philosophy? Lol, you should always check for meanings of words before you use them.

Go check for the meaning of vitalism and come back.

And can you even imagine, you don't even know the meaning of vitalism! I give up on you.

What have you been arguing since??

He's reading without understanding. That's what happens when you are too much in a hurry to make noise.

He still doesn't understand the point you are trying to make, read his last post.

dalaman:


He's reading without understanding. That's what happens when you are too much in a hurry to make noise.

He still doesn't understand the point you are trying to make, read his last post.

I have seen his confusion

butterflyl1on:


You are so ignorant it hurts

Vitalism is the philosophical doctrine that life has a quality independent of physical and chemical laws, such as an immaterial soul. It therefore is opposed to naturalism, the belief that only the natural world exists.
Vitalism is also the basis for the modern spiritual belief in a "life force" or energy. This "force" has been roundly rejected by science,

This is the position which supports fundamental Christianity and the new age and you in your ignorance feels it is destroying religion when it clearly supports life exists outside the material world as science knows it.

Why do you think science rejects it?

Science cannot accept what it cannot prove materially and vitalism is an immaterial philosophical position.

Go and borrow some intelligence you clearly have a deficit.

Whatever made you think vitalism was science did you a great disservice. Vitalism is philosophy and philosophy last time I checked is not science and because it isn't scientifically proven is often rejected and seen as simply a personal opinion.

You need help especially since you are now throwing shoes and spoons at me all to get cheap points. Your slogan seems to be "throw anything at him so as to fake intelligence".

Well I know better.

I see clearly that you don't read with understanding or best put, your comprehension level is low. Did you say you know better? Let's see if you do. Read my post that you quoted with this on vitalism and come back to explain yourself.

The statement was 'Read on vitalism and see how Knowledge in science has destroyed religion, it's a gradual process.' It occurred to me that your interpretation of English is also faulty, why should I even continue with you when you don't even lack basic understanding?

Even a primary school student will know that statement means vitalism is a vital part of religion and not vice versa, so what are you saying here?

Graycoder:


I have seen his confusion

He is gradually decending into the Felixmoron level by reading without understanding.

butterflyl1on:



I will simply say one thing about all your ignorance here.

Since I have already responded to all the above except your last comment to let me do so very simply.

Synthetic DNA consists of genes that are isolated from the natural world, "captured," and then copied.

You seem not to know what the word CREATE means and you thought synthetic meant actual creation and not a copy or clone.

Synthetic DNA is simply a copy of an existing one. Your ignorance is appalling .

Even your link speaks about copying and tinkering with what already existed and you seem overjoyed?

Why don't they try getting it done from scratch and not based on an already existing blueprint or copying from that which already existed.

This singular ignorance of yours shows that your entire post is a farce

I am sorry for two things

(1.) Your state of oblivion which will never end.
(2.) The condemnation that you are suffering right now

Now, let me educate you a bit.

*Synthetic DNA is DNA made from materials that are not DNA. Basically from the Nitrogenous bases, 5-carbon sugar and phosphate groups.
*Cloned DNA is DNA made from other DNA materials. Although it is synthetic but it is made from another copy of DNA DIFFERENT FROM DNA fragments. So, in our field(Biochemistry) we call it Cloned instead of Synthetic.
*Natural DNA is DNA made by the genetic combinations of both parent during fertilization

Please, it is pertinent that you learn. And it is rather appalling for someone who doesn't know to assume he knows. The person is simply an Ignoramus.

Graycoder:



I see clearly that you don't read with understanding or best put, your comprehension level is low. Did you say you know better? Let's see if you do. Read my post that you quoted with this on vitalism and come back to explain yourself.

The statement was 'Read on vitalism and see how Knowledge in science has destroyed religion, it's a gradual process.' It occurred to me that your interpretation of English is also faulty, why should I even continue with you when you don't even lack basic understanding?

Even a primary school student will know that statement means vitalism is a vital part of religion and not vice versa, so what are you saying here?

SMH you seem lost.

you posted vitalism as a science and I told you it's philosophy and you were shocked that it is actually philosophy and tried denying it.

However vitalism which does not subscribe to science since it dwells on the immaterial which in itself limits science.

Science cannot disprove what is above or beyond its limit. They can only say so to themselves as their limit permits but what is beyond it remains its limitation

I have always maintained that science has its limits in materialism and cannot go beyond that. However materialism is not all there is. In fact it is extremely minute compared to what truly is.

See it anyway you choose but your view remains yours while mine remains mine and science or man cannot rule my life when same science simply works with pre existing information which even they do not know how such fine tuned and orderly information was even made available for them to be discovered and applied to work so well for humanity.

Keep on clutching at straws

Graycoder:



I am sorry for two things

(1.) Your state of oblivion which will never end.
(2.) The condemnation that you are suffering right now

Now, let me educate you a bit.

*Synthetic DNA is DNA made from materials that are not DNA. Basically from the Nitrogenous bases, 5-carbon sugar and phosphate groups.
*Cloned DNA is DNA made from other DNA materials. Although it is synthetic but it is made from another copy of DNA DIFFERENT FROM DNA fragments. So, in our field(Biochemistry) we call it Cloned instead of Synthetic.
*Natural DNA is DNA made by the genetic combinations of both parent during fertilization

Please, it is pertinent that you learn. And it is rather appalling for someone who doesn't know to assume he knows. The person is simply an Ignoramus.

You are indeed confused

A synthetic DNA simply imitates a natural existing DNA. It was simply copied. It was not built from scratch. It was built off one which already existed.

This shouldn't be hard to take in should it?

In simpler form, it was fabricated from pre existing DNA blueprint. Why use the pre-existing blueprint? Why not create an all new blueprint altogether?

Why borrow information?

butterflyl1on:


SMH you seem lost.

you posted vitalism as a science and I told you it's philosophy and you were shocked that it is actually philosophy and tried denying it.

However vitalism which does not subscribe to science since it dwells on the immaterial which in itself limits science.

Science cannot disprove what is above or beyond its limit. They can only say so to themselves as their limit permits but what is beyond it remains its limitation

I have always maintained that science has its limits in materialism and cannot go beyond that. However materialism is not all there is. In fact it is extremely minute compared to what truly is.

See it anyway you choose but your view remains yours while mine remains mine and science or man cannot rule my life when same science simply works with pre existing information which even they do not know how such fine tuned and orderly information was even made available for them to be discovered and applied to work so well for humanity.

Keep on clutching at straws

Lol, I posted Vitalism as science? Really? Have you read the post again? Go and read it and come back to say sorry. Else I'll post screenshots of my post, your quote too. You have started to show the usual habits of typical religious people who lose arguments cheaply.

You see, I have stopped posting long epistles because I have realized how pathetic you seem. You are still here defending your mistake.

Graycoder:


Lol, I posted Vitalism as science? Really? Have you read the post again? Go and read it and come back to say sorry. Else I'll post screenshots of my post, your quote too. You have started to show the usual habits of typical religious people who lose arguments cheaply.

You see, I have stopped posting long epistles because I have realized how pathetic you seem. You are still here defending your mistake.

He's the resident spinner. Why he is still arguing over his mistakes is what I fail to understand, after showing him your initial statement he is still dowant want to understand you but too much in a hurry to make noise. Na wah ooo.

Graycoder:


Lol, I posted Vitalism as science? Really? Have you read the post again? Go and read it and come back to say sorry. Else I'll post screenshots of my post, your quote too. You have started to show the usual habits of typical religious people who lose arguments cheaply.

You see, I have stopped posting long epistles because I have realized how pathetic you seem. You are still here defending your mistake.

You are indeed confused. In your own words when I told you vitalism was philosophy you asked me "so in my own words vitalism is philosophy"?

Do you want me to show you?

You even asked that I look up the meaning of vitalism. You had no idea that vitalism falls under philosophy did you?

Why ask me that question is indeed you felt vitalism was philosophy? So if you say it is not philosophy what then is it? Your argument was about science isnt it?

Later he'll start shouting goal post shifting. . Simple read and comprehend you can not.

Graycoder:


Lol, I posted Vitalism as science? Really? Have you read the post again? Go and read it and come back to say sorry. Else I'll post screenshots of my post, your quote too. You have started to show the usual habits of typical religious people who lose arguments cheaply.

You see, I have stopped posting long epistles because I have realized how pathetic you seem. You are still here defending your mistake.

Your own words

And yet the goal post shiftings are responses to your posts. Look for a better and responsible way to gain points. You have been crying goal shifting in every post you've made.

So in your own world Vitalism is philosophy? Lol, you should always check for meanings of words before you use them.

Go check for the meaning of vitalism and come back.

And can you even imagine, you don't even know the meaning of vitalism! I give up on you.

What have you been arguing since?

If you deny that vitalism is philosophy then what is it?

butterflyl1on:


You are indeed confused

A synthetic DNA simply imitates a natural existing DNA. It was simply copied. It was not built from scratch. It was built off one which already existed.

This shouldn't be hard to take in should it?

In simpler form, it was fabricated from pre existing DNA blueprint. Why use the pre-existing blueprint? Why not create an all new blueprint altogether?

Why borrow information?

Dalaman is absolutely right about who you are. And you keep confirming it.

Whatever you believe or however it makes you happy to live on lies and fallacy, Synthetic DNA is not Cloned DNA. Synthetic DNA IS MADE FROM FRAGMENTS, AND THAT IS SOMETHING. In fact, the first people who made it won Nobel prizes that proving god can never win for you.

You don't know science yet you talk about it. Is that how you spread fallacies?

These were my statements on Vitalism and science. Vitalism depicts religion full blown. Philosophy is a school of thought or doctrine. My statement asking if philosophy is vitalism is a bombastic statement. But your claim that I posted vitalism as science is one of the many lies just like in the bible. Don't force it, you have messed it up.

Graycoder:


Dalaman is absolutely right about who you are. And you keep confirming it.

Whatever you believe or however it makes you happy to live on lies and fallacy, Synthetic DNA is not Cloned DNA. Synthetic DNA IS MADE FROM FRAGMENTS, AND THAT IS SOMETHING. In fact, the first people who made it won Nobel prizes that proving god can never win for you.

You don't know science yet you talk about it. Is that how you spread fallacies?

These were my statements on Vitalism and science. Vitalism depicts religion full blown. Philosophy is a school of thought or doctrine. My statement asking if philosophy is vitalism is a bombastic statement. But your claim that I posted vitalism as science is one of the many lies in the bible. Don't force it, you have messed it up.

You are trying too hard to sound smart.

From the start I told you vitalism was philosophy and your next comment was "so in my world vitalism is philosophy"?

Why deny it now?

We are talking about science and from the blue you said science disproved vitalism which does not in any way subscribe to science and you say I am confused?

Go to bed and sleep

butterflyl1on:



You are trying too hard to sound smart.

From the start I told you vitalism was philosophy and your next comment was "so in my world vitalism is philosophy"?

Why deny it now?

We are talking about science and from the blue you said science disproved vitalism which does not in any way subscribe to science and you say I am confused?

Go to bed and sleep

You are really confused brother. I made that statement in my very first post after answering the attributes a god should have. When we have not even gone deep at all. Stop looking for cheap wins and agree to your mistake. We are all fallible.

So, if I ask this - "so in your world vitalism is philosophy"? Does it mean I said categorically said that Vitalism is not philosophy or this is one of your empty assumptions again? You need bed more than me, you should go, we'll continue to see the fall of you in the day after work.

Graycoder:


You are really confused brother. I made that statement in my very first post after answering the attributes a god should have. When we have not even gone deep at all. Stop looking for cheap wins and agree to your mistake. We are all fallible.

So, if I ask this - "so in your world vitalism is philosophy"? Does it mean I said categorically said that Vitalism is not philosophy or this is one of your empty assumptions again? You need bed more than me, you should go, we'll continue to see the fall of you in the day after work.

All I see is desperation now from you.

If I said vitalism is philosophy and you immediately responded by saying "so in my world vitalism is philosophy "? What are you then suggesting?

Are you suggesting that it is something else which isn't philosophy? Or are you claiming I was wrong to call it philosophy?

Your question shows you are confused and desperate now to save face.

So what does "so in your world vitalism is philosophy? " mean?

Explain your way out of this one. I want to see it