Creationists

[daws101]

Why do I hold a molecular biologist degree daws if you are correct ?

if it's not a PhD Common Requirements
Degree Level Ph.D.*
then you are not a molecular biologist

also you have not: Published research in a peer-reviewed journal (if Im' wrong post a link to the paper)
it's clear you are not a PhD

You are so wrong and you do not know what I hold. Once again you do not have to hold a Phd to do the work of a molecular biologist. You are simply talking out your rear again.

Should You Get a Ph.D.? – Mike the Mad Biologist

yes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
doing the "work" of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
still waiting on that paper .

 

[Hollie]

Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?

If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

Debunked previously.

No it was never debunked.

Facts are a stubborn thing.

The Bible mentions hydrothermal vents, mountains and valleys on the ocean floor and many other things that are scientifically consistent with what we know today. And having been written thousands of years ago, you nor anyone else has explained how these men could have possibly known these things.


Don't bother responding.

I already know you will not give an intelligent explanation.

Your intellect is limited to asinine comments and insults.

As I wrote out, it was already debunked. One of the other fundies posted the same nonsense previously. What you will provide are vague references and bad metaphors that you will convince yourself are accurate descriptions of science. Do you fundies all copy and paste from the same creation ministries?

For a real scientific miracle of the Bible, that flat earth and an earth-centered solar system are wonders to behold.

Are there any other assinine comments you wish to make?

 

[daws101]

The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.

Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible

Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?

If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

the bible never mentions specifics....like where the vents actually are, the authors makes guesses
and completely ambiguous statements that can and are falsely interpreted to mean any thing the publishers of these " facts" wish them too.

science in the bible debunked :The final eleven “facts” from the 101 given here. The aim of the exercise that Eternal Productions (who compiled the list) set themselves was to take a modern scientific claim or explanation, and to show us the Biblical verse which foretells or prefigures said claim/explanation. Thus far, after 90 such claims have been examined, none have withstood scrutiny; in fact, 51 – over half – have been revealed not to be any sort of scientific claim.

91.Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

92.Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: “profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science).” True science agrees with the Creator’s Word.

On the basis of the evidence of these “facts”, I’d beg to differ. No scientific claim is being tested here.

93. Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews – which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

94. Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.

The etymology lesson is next to useless, because the earliest Biblical manuscripts were not written in neither English nor Latin (where the roots of the word “conscience” lie). No scientific claim is being tested here.

95. Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, God’s Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

96. The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donor’s character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

No scientific claim is being tested here.

97. The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted – introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

98. Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die – “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of God’s Law. To see if you will die, please review God’s Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then you’re an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creator’s name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy – and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.

No scientific claim is being tested here. It’s more of a sermon…

99. Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death – which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.

More theological claims. No scientific claim is being tested here.

100. Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person – free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.

Science is not trying to cure aging and death as such – they’re certainly not searching “in vain”. A lot of theology, but no scientific claim is being tested here.

101. The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

We end on preaching, rather than demonstrable scientific truth: No scientific claim is being tested here.

Astonishingly, not one of the eleven so-called scientific facts are scientific facts at all, and can therefore be dismissed. This means that only 39 of the 101 “facts” are genuine attempts to put an understanding of a scientific claim to the Bible. 62 are simply not any sort of scientific claim at all.

However, none – not a single one – of the 39 stand up: they either misread the Bible, or show an inadequate understanding of science.

I’m genuinely surprised at that over well over half of the 101 “facts” are not even attempts at scientific claims, but rather just comment or anti-evoltution rhetoric.

The final part in this series will attempt to derive some sort of conclusion from this exercies, and wrap up my own particular efforts at tackling the absurd claims of Creationism.
Exposed: 101 Scientific Facts in the Bible « Science and the Bible Archive

 

[daws101]

The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.

Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible

You lie or show me someting to support your accusation.

see post# 11463

 

[UltimateReality]

another false and childish gay slur!

Seriously??? How is this gay if Hollie is a woman? Do you know of any guys named Hollie? Plus, when she was pressed on the other forum about her sex, she responded not "I am man". She responded, "I am of the male persuasion." So let me get this straight. If Hollie is woman who thinks she's a man and she gives you a back rub, is that gay?

another false and childish gay slur!

And yet another dodge and failed answered question from the angry fundie.

 

[UltimateReality]

And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.

You can never just answer the question. You're are obviously mentally retarded.

My, but you are the prototypical angry Christian creationist. You're angry that your attempts to associate DNA coding with your alleged gawds has gone horribly wrong. That really shouldn't surprise you. Christian fundies have been unable to offer a coherent argument for their gawds that doesn't rely on attacks aimed at science. While Christian fundies will pick and choose science data just as they pick and choose religious dogma, the body of science supporting the natural elements for existence leaves little room for supermagicalism and fear of an angry, paternal supernatural entity.

And yet more hate from the seething angry evofundie.

 

[UltimateReality]

this is no answer.
but sadly it's the best you could do since you have no evidence to prove she is wrong .

Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.

If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.

Oh he is dumber then he looks.

Really? No one could be that dumb!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

this is no answer.
but sadly it's the best you could do since you have no evidence to prove she is wrong .

Before I can offer an answer there needs to be a valid question.

If you think that Teresa holds no bias then you are dumber than you look.

here we go ...
it depends on what you mean by bias ?

I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss your urinary incontinence old man.

 

[newpolitics]

The evidence of our God can be seen in the heavens. Evidence of our God can be seen on this planet. Evidence of our God can be seen in humans for we are created in his image.

If that is not enough for you go here.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

If that is not enough for you get down on your knees and pray to him asking him to come into your life.

Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible

Do you acknowledge the Bible was written thousands of years ago?

If so, then explain how the authors would know about certain things they wrote about... such as hydrothermal vents (of which geologist didn't discover unti the 1970's),that the ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains and that the entire universe is in a state of increasing decay or entropy (Second Law of Thermodynamics).

They didn't know about hydrothermal vents or entropy. That's simply what you are reading into the passages. Please quote the specific passages, and I will debunk this little claim.

 

[newpolitics]

Let's compare and contrast, shall we?

A few thoughts for Daws, Hawly, NP, others:

The reason the evolution argument "works" for you, is because you already believe in materialism. Essentially, you have already accepted the conclusion of the theory of evolution, and so it appears convincing, totally and completely. In a sense, you are "begging the question" when you convince yourself that this theory must be true, because you already contain the premise that evolution is true before you even approach the argument. Therefore, how can you claim to honestly assess its merits? I doubt that you have. You're forgetting that thousands of scientists have not accepted the theory of evolution. (twist on NP's appeal to the mob)

I suspect evolutionary theory is accepted by many simply because of confirmation bias (those who already have a need to believe it is the only explanation), although I will admit that it is the teleological and cosmological arguments that most often convert people to materialism, in addition to the need to justify their atheism, which many times is brought on by traumatic childhood experiences, including sexual abuse that results in same sex attraction (I just added that for NP and Hawly). I can understand this: they simply cannot come to grips that a loving God would let this happen to them. The problem is that intuition is not based on real science. This, if anything, is what the pseudo science of evolution teaches us: that our intuition about the true nature of reality isn't right. So instead, we keep repeating to ourselves, even though this looks designed it isn't. And professors brainwash their students by pre programming their reaction to design by telling them when they make their observation, just keep remembering it wasn't designed. The theory of evolution has also dumbed down the other sciences, with its just so stories and inductively arrived at conclusions that they pretend are deducted "facts". Just look at quantum mechanics. One must accept that our reality isn't the only reality since it requires multiple universes, invisible forces like dark matter and dark energy, other dimensions, and particles that disappear and reappear.

There you go again, copying and pasting my post.

There are no teleological or cosmological arguments for materialism. A teleological argument for materialism doesn't make coherent sense. It is obvious you know nothing about this term. The teleological argument is the argument for a final cause, or a design, which necessarily precludes materialism. Nothing in materialism ever posits that there is a final cause. Therefore, again, you are making a categorical error. So, your lame tactic of copying and pasting my posts has backfired on you.

If a person can't examine something and see it is a product of design it's because they don't want to.

Intuition is not evidence for something. That fact that something looks designed is not evidence that it actually is, just like the fact that lightning sounds like the gods are bowling doesn't mean good 'ol Zeus is up there throwing strikes. Science has proven in almost every case, that human intuition is wrong when it comes to scientific realities, so, this is not even close to an argument.

 

[Hollie]

You can never just answer the question. You're are obviously mentally retarded.

My, but you are the prototypical angry Christian creationist. You're angry that your attempts to associate DNA coding with your alleged gawds has gone horribly wrong. That really shouldn't surprise you. Christian fundies have been unable to offer a coherent argument for their gawds that doesn't rely on attacks aimed at science. While Christian fundies will pick and choose science data just as they pick and choose religious dogma, the body of science supporting the natural elements for existence leaves little room for supermagicalism and fear of an angry, paternal supernatural entity.

And yet more hate from the seething angry evofundie.

I suppose it was time to abandon the siilly "DNA = proof of the gawds", claim. So you dropped it like a boat anchor and exited with a last gasp of flaming rhetoric.

"Oh the pain...."

 

[newpolitics]

Nope, you are wrong 241,000 religions makes Christanity a philosophy. Every religion has their own set of doctrines and everyone of them claim to have the truth.

that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion and a philosophy." do you not understand?
must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying other facts.


American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. O’Reilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.

Bill O’Reilly: ‘Christianity is Not a Religion; It’s a Philosophy’

An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?


No bias there.

No, the actual definitions of words and applied concepts is going to tell us what makes a religion a religion. The fact that christianity has multiple denominations does not grant it "philosophy" status. This presupposes that the christian god exists. Considering there is zero proof for god, you don't get to call christianity a philosophy. If the christian god were known to exist by every person on earth because this god demonstrated his existence to us , then you might get to call christianity a philosophy. No, god didn't already show himself to us, because the bible is not reliable as evidence for supernatural claims. If textual evidence is sufficient for believing supernatural claims, then you must also believe the Koran, the Baghavad-Gita, and so on.

 

[newpolitics]

If you add functionality and specificity, then it is a sign of intelligence. I have asked you before but you remain silent on producing a functional, specifiable information in digital form that doesn't have an intelligent agent as its source.

Even if we have 100 examples, or even 1,000 examples of other functional, specifiable digital codes that were created by intelligence, we still wouldn't be able to conclude that DNA must also therefore be created by an intelligence. We have only two examples, as you claim, of such type of information: DNA and digital computer code. We know that one of these codes is produced by intelligence, because we have evidence: we created the code. (This is where the availability heuristic comes into play for IDers like Meyer) The fact that we know where one of these codes comes from, does not give us the freedom to say the other one also comes from an intelligence. You must make a logical leap to reach this conclusion, and this is a fallacy. Your inductive reasoning can never get you to the conclusion that DNA was created intelligently created because another code with similar attributes was. I realize this may seem intuitive to you, but as I have mentioned, intuition has nothing to do with science, and can not be counted as evidence, because it is completely subjective. As I mentioned before, you already possess the conclusion that an intelligent being exists, so you seem to think this inductive reasoning is valid, when it isn't. This is your bias.

 

[Youwerecreated]

if it's not a PhD Common Requirements
Degree Level Ph.D.*
then you are not a molecular biologist

also you have not: Published research in a peer-reviewed journal (if Im' wrong post a link to the paper)
it's clear you are not a PhD

You are so wrong and you do not know what I hold. Once again you do not have to hold a Phd to do the work of a molecular biologist. You are simply talking out your rear again.

Should You Get a Ph.D.? – Mike the Mad Biologist

yes I do know what degree you hold it's a A.A. unless that's a lie too.
doing the "work" of a molecular biologist"is not the same as being one.
still waiting on that paper .

How do you not understand this ?



I have a Masters in Biology (from a 5 year BS/MS program) and for the past 4 years I’ve been working as a lab manager/technician. I have my own research project(s) in addition to keeping track of ordering/equipment maintenance/mouse breeding/etc. All-in-all it’s a sweet gig and I could see myself doing this or something similar for most of my career. The problem is that there seems to be this culture in biology that one has to get a PhD, and my competitive side kind of feels the need to get one mostly just to show that I can. My practical side can’t figure out why it would be worth taking a pay cut for 5+ years of extra stress just to continue doing what I’m already doing. I have no desire to run my own lab, and have little desire to teach.

My very short answer: no.

If you are considering keeping your professional options open, then perhaps consider getting another master’s degree, either in a technical speciality, such as computational biology or statistics, or an MBA, which has some ‘credentialing’ value*.

The Ph.D. is not for that. As the reader correctly notes, a Ph.D. will be at least five years of more work and stress for less pay than a qualified lab tech. Actually, it will be more closer to ten years, and you might need to relocate a couple of times. It doesn’t sound like that’s what the reader wants to do.

To get a Ph.D. (in biology anyway), I think it requires four things:


1) A passion for biology. It has to go beyond ‘somewhat interesting.’

2) A willingness to spend a lot of time wanting to solve a particular problem.

3) A desire to live the ‘life of the mind’–you have to be really intellectually curious, and that curiosity has to be your lodestar.

4) This is the most important: you have to be willing to prioritize #1-3 above many other things, such as where you live, job stability, setting aside retirement income, and so on**. Worse, to capitalize on the Ph.D., at least in academia, you will have to keep prioritizing those things until you get tenure (business and non-profits can be a different matter).

I would also add that I’ve seen too many Ph.D.s who, upon graduating, are little more than glorified lab technicians. They haven’t been rigorously trained in any intellectual sense (they are supposed to be doctors of philosophy). Since the reader is already doing that (and enjoying it), why suffer through the Ph.D.? It definitely should not be the new B.Sc. or M.S.

*When it comes to the worth of an MBA (besides the networking, learning some basic lingo, and gaining a credential), I’m inclined to agree with Matthew Shaw’s argument in The Management Myth: an MBA is really just a poor philosophy degree (both the education and the philosophy are poor). If the world were organized according to the Mad Biologist, I would hire mathematically and statistically knowledgeable philosophy PhDs and MAs, not MBAs.

**To a considerable extent, a Ph.D. and post-doc retard one’s ability to become a ‘normal’ adult. Many parts of your life revolve around moving to the next stage, as opposed to actually living one’s life. There is little job stability, the pay sucks, you don’t know when you might move up, and you have to geographically relocate often. You really better love what you do, or find something else to do.


Noun
•S: (n) molecular biologist (a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life)

Definition for molecular biologist:
Web definitions:
a biologist who studies the structure and activity of macromolecules essential to life.

So what am I daws ? You are just spewing nonsense now daws as usual.

 

[Youwerecreated]

that's not an answer! what part of "Christianity is a religion and a philosophy." do you not understand?
must be the same willful ignorance that you use when denying other facts.


American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert. Trust me; Christianity is a religion by any modern definition. According to my theology professors, Christianity has been and always will be a religion. Every priest, every pastor, every Sunday School teacher, choir member, deacon, usher, and pew sitter will tell you that Christianity is a religion. So where did Mr. O’Reilly come up with this idea? Oh! I know! The tides told him.

Bill O’Reilly: ‘Christianity is Not a Religion; It’s a Philosophy’

An atheist is going to tell us what is or isn't a religion?


No bias there.

who the **** is "us"
GUESS YOU'RE ILLITERATE TOO "American Atheists’ Teresa MacBain has something to say about whether or not Christianity is a religion:

I’m a former pastor, who served many churches for over 20 years. I would consider myself somewhat of an expert."

please explain how this person's knowledge of christianity becomes invalid just because they quit buying into the bullshit.
that's like saying because you're no longer a taxi driver, you've lost the ability to drive.
who's bias again?

What degree do you hold daws to be a pastor ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

no you're not stop dodging

Open systems and closed systems plus viruses are not science Daws ?

coming from believers like yourself in pseudoscience and deniers of fact (the bible has mistakes and errors in it)
is not science... your use of the terms: " Open systems and closed systems plus viruses" is false evidence of of your agenda ,and not science.

Wrong Daws, I even provided sources from your side that agree with me.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you mean these thing you lack?: Common Requirements
Degree Level Ph.D.*
Degree Field Molecular biology or a related field*
Key Skills Analytical skills, communication skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills*
Technical Skills Operation of cloning vectors, temperature cycling chambers, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectrometers, volumetric pipettes**
Computer Skills Use of analytical and scientific software, graphical imaging software**

Sources: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, **O Net OnLine.

Step 1 - Earn a Bachelor's Degree
A molecular biologist can earn an undergraduate degree in molecular biology. In some cases, the degree may be in cell and molecular biology or exist as a concentration within a biology program. Students take science courses that include biology, chemistry, physics and genetics. Students also take lab courses, learning about proper use of equipment and experimental procedure.

Success Tip:
•Participate in research opportunities. Undergraduates can find research opportunities either through a program designated for undergraduates or by making a special request to faculty. Research at the undergraduate level can help students improve critical thinking skills and build professional skills as well as learn to implement and perform credible research.
Step 2 - Earn a Graduate Degree
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, most molecular biologists require a Ph.D. Some molecular biologists may choose to earn a master's degree prior to pursuing a Ph.D. program, but many doctoral programs accept students without a master's degree. The Ph.D. program generally lasts 4-6 years and includes advanced coursework and required research. Ph.D. candidates will likely have to pass a qualifying exam, during which they are assessed on their knowledge of molecular biology. They also have to introduce a research thesis. Ph.D. candidates have to write a dissertation based on their ongoing research and defend their theses to graduate from the program. Ph.D. programs may also include a teaching requirement.

Success Tip:
•Publish research in a peer-reviewed journal. Research that has been peer-reviewed by other scientists serves as a proof that the research method and results are credible. Graduate students can have research results published as a co-author or as a lead author on a research study.

Why do I hold a molecular biologist degree daws if you are correct ?

if it's not a PhD Common Requirements
Degree Level Ph.D.*
then you are not a molecular biologist

also you have not: Published research in a peer-reviewed journal (if Im' wrong post a link to the paper)
it's clear you are not a PhD

You really don't know what you are talking about,phd's are useless unless you want to teach.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Still using the bible to make your argument is not proof.
there is no quantifiable proof that god made anything.
you're wrong as always !

Still using your textbooks and online sites to make your arguments daws ?

you mean just like you or that I actually know how to use them?

My words don't seem to mean much to you so when I can I use sources on your side, as well as mine not to mention my own words.

With you,you only use words of rhetoric when not copying and pasting nothing of substance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

coming from believers like yourself in pseudoscience and deniers of fact (the bible has mistakes and errors in it)
is not science... your use of the terms: " Open systems and closed systems plus viruses" is false evidence of of your agenda ,and not science.

I used sources on your side of the argument. Prove what you say is accurate ?

already have

 

[Youwerecreated]

Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge is neither!
there is no corroborating evidence for those claims.
all of them have been proven to be either fictitious or intentionally misrepresented.
again it's an attempt to prove the bible by using the bible

You lie or show me someting to support your accusation.

see post# 11463

Your ignorance of the scriptures does not make the bible inaccurate numb nuts.