It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
There is no reason not to consider that a structure is related to its components??
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I mean do you understand how trivial in relation to the OP your point really is?
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The OP makes clear there is a relationship please explain why that is impossible?
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I have more then elaborated as to why.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
I mean are we back to discussing a feeling in your big toe?
And please do not again bring up how many agree with you that just brings up another effort at presenting a Fallacy in Logic.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
As well as your lack of education with all due and in respect.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Baloney the articles are not related except that they are at the front page of a search engine. And they relate to a topic in general, in response to a Boolean Search of the topic in general.
Your point is irrelevant.
originally posted by: Kashai
Presenting that a DNA test of some kind would yield results related to the issue...not a metaphor but a clear point related to some kind of "test".
originally posted by: Kashai
Not a metaphorical test but a real test.
originally posted by: Kashai
I mean I am certain the authors understood the difference between making a statement and identifying it is metaphorical and the alternative.
originally posted by: Kashai
Such a statement usually begins with, "Metaphorically speaking,"
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Bedlam
Nonetheless the DNA contains electrons and so in order for DNA to form there needs to be electrons.
originally posted by: Kashai
I think difference with a "Metaphor" and a "test" is apparent.
originally posted by: Kashai
I am not interesting in listening how many agree with you. As that is often evidence of nothing more than some bias that has nothing to do with cold hard facts.
originally posted by: Kashai
Which are that the OP offered that DNA is related and in context matter could be defined as more than the "classical", sum of its parts.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
Why even mention it at all
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The article point to the fact that this is in fact related to DNA and in relation to its structure fundamentally.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
You have yet to provide any argument in response to my points, that actually seems completely relevant to the structure of matter.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
It in all sincerity makes no difference that you think it was a metaphor as in fact there is not referent in the article to any metaphor.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
The article states as a matter of fact that investigating or testing DNA to this end should produce a relationship between the issue of such particles and DNA.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
While you opinion has been noted in my opinion it is irrelevant to this discussion.
originally posted by: Kashai
a reply to: Ghost147
To be clear I am not impressed with the idea that two other members who like you support "religiously", a reductionist ideology, support your position.