Originally Posted by SoNic67
Originally Posted by arnyk
You didn't prove your assumption.
My assumption is not an assumption. Sighted bias is a readily observable fact. You are asking me to prove something that is as obvious and repeatable as the rising of the sun.
I would say that was enough de-bunked by the 20k failed experiments. You can cry that those are "not ABX" but they are really the same experiment.
Rational explanation with documentation apparently has no effect on you.
The above is just a collection of unproven and some unprovable assumptions. Further more, several are false claims as presented, because they are not universal claims of modern science.
I'll reproduce them here for others to entertain themselves with:
False Assumption #1) The universe is mechanical
False Assumption #2) All matter is unconscious
False Assumption #3) The total amount of matter and energy is always a constant
False Assumption #4) The laws of nature are fixed
False Assumption #5) Nature is purposeless, with no goal or direction
False Assumption #6) All biological inheritance is material, carried in DNA
False Assumption #7) There is no such thing as a "mind" other than an artifact of brain function
False Assumption #8) Memories are stored chemically in the brain and disappear at death
False Assumption #9) Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory
False Assumption #10) Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works
One obvious false claim is #6. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extranuclear_inheritance
DNA is found in the nucleus of cells. The above article lists 2 kinds of extranuclear inheritance or inheritance that passed by means outside the nucleus of the cell::
Extranuclear Inheritance of Organelles
Extranuclear Inheritance of Parasites
and 3 types of extranuclear inheritance:
The worst thing about the article is that it makes the false assumption that just because science finds an answer that all other answers are automatically excluded. That's not how science works. All findings of science are provisional until better answers are found. For example, just because we currently don't know of any matter that is not part of a living thing has consciousness doesn't mean that such a thing will never be discovered.
Your article is not only free of reasoned, evidentiary support for its assertions, but some if not all of its assertions are themselves based on an incorrect understanding of modern science.Edited by arnyk - 8/22/13 at 12:02pm