Correct, the efficiency is not relevant, it's the mechanisms which went into figuring them out (biological neurological cognitive processes) which demonstrate intelligence. Hence Newton described gravity, Einstein described it a little better, and quantum physics described it more efficiently again. Yet all were intelligent. Gravity itself of course being an intelligent process because it involves a performance.If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.
Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.
Coming soon: INTELLIGENT FALLING THEORY! That'll show those dunces at Harvard, right?
Despite this you keep making baseless criticisms of scientific concepts. And when demonstrated you are then asked for a better alternative. You then simply appropriate the same scientific research, credit it to God and say that's how God did it because you are unable to even discuss the subject, much less provide any valid critiques. Stupidity and intellectual dishonesty on your part, all in the same breath.Indeed, one fool makes many.
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
And this is what you get for relying on non-scientific websites by people who design websites for a living.MY claim?
"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_li...
Is chemistry inanimate?
Ah, that must be why you're talking apologetics for Jewish wizardry and I'm not.You dont even know anything about science, do you?
No, that is not my claim. In fact I've argued specifically AGAINST that claim with a fundie atheist called Skippy for YEARS. I have not and never claimed that (a) God does not and cannot exist. In fact I am quite open to the possibility. Reality is what it is regardless of our current knowledge. There may be Klingons in Beta quadrant. There may not be Klingons in Beta quadrant. But so far there is no evidence. Hence no reason to consider it a valid claim.Right.
And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?
So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible"?
The real God or the God humans describe? I merely pointed out the BEST you could do was demonstrate it as a metaphor. It cannot be reduced from a scientific definition you are unable to provide. As a practical definition for a genuine entity it is worthless. As a label for a being of worship around which humans formed cultures and religions, it works fine. But just because Vikings worshiped Thor doesn't mean it exists.You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?