No problems.
I often find the media gets too much into the detail of a court ruling and misses the important issues.

That was a shock, when I first learned that.

Pretty much.

His opening statement is:

	Start by accepting as fact that all machines ever observed have come from an intelligence.

This is a statement but it's not valid for use in propositional logic.

Statements as propositions need to be presented in a way for them to be true or false, but not both. And they certainly cannot be introduced by making a literal proposition which is what he did. This is usually done by use of the word "if" which is then followed by implications by use of the word "then".

There are further errors that he made later on in posts trying to back up his already existing errors but he won't admit to them. He's a bit of a bullshitter.

thanks

It is really hard to disrupt the integrity of the entire genome with a couple of molecules. HDAC and HDACi have binding targets throughout the entire genome; however, up to 90% of the genome is in a condensed state so their activity in modulating histones are limited. This is why you can't disrupt cell cycle.

The title of this thread had me lol-ing for a good 15 seconds.

Oh come now. You know he's clicking the View Post link because he just can't stand it.

See what happens when you get too excited?

And for understanding cult psychology.

I figured and took no offense. But still felt compelled to state my position. It'll probably draw out the Austrians to explain in No True Scotsman fashion how everything would've been fine if not for the fact that we really don't have a free-market economy.

obviously not

You grabbed the non edited part, that's even better!

Yes, I do regard Biology as a hard science. I just didn't want to get into side arguments.

I think you are terrific. Truly!

That's fine I'm putting more time than I can afford into this already. I don't agree with the specific UPB calculation presented, but the concept of a UPB must exist in a finite universe, which cannot logically contain an infinitely small probability. Quite honestly I think his number is far too generous since every event occurs within a phase space astronomically smaller than "the universe."

Didn't you say you read Meyer's arguments? Emile Borel's Law - argued as a Universal Probability Bound [Borel, Emile (1965), Elements of the Theory of Probability (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).]

+1

good insight

I was not able to send messages while restricted. Editing my BSC post was my only way of answering you.