30 Nov 11
Originally posted by sonhouseDon't talk about yourself like that. Your not so bad. Take a break now and
Amazing, someone from the 20th and 21st century with his head firmly up the asss of the 18th century.
watch the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show on TV. Be a dirty old man, like
me. Enjoy God's beautiful women.
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThat post says more about you than you would prolly like us to know,but hey , the cat is out of the bag. Pandora only comes out of it's (her?) box, it doesn't go back in!
Don't talk about yourself like that. Your not so bad. Take a break now and
watch the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show on TV. Be a dirty old man, like
me. Enjoy God's beautiful women.
30 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsWell "the cat is out of the bag" is one saying.
You say pandora the cat is out. Is this a cartoon character or a real cat?
And Pandora's box is another idea.
The point being with "Pandora's box" is that "it" only comes out, it doesn't go back in.
Do you get it?
Means once you've said something , it's out there and you cant take it back (simply put)
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsbill gates doesn't have any degrees, his "PHDs" are honorary. but i could be wrong, if you can present evidence of bill gates having a degree in evolutionary biology that he legitimately earned, then he would have the necessary background to make such comments.
He has a science degree and worked as a scientist for a short time, until
he got his PHD is science philosophy. So you are jumping to a conclusion
when you do not know what you are talking about.
now then, back to the proof issue... did you have any? still waiting for that proof.
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelOh, did I say something you disapprove of?
Well "the cat is out of the bag" is one saying.
And Pandora's box is another idea.
The point being with "Pandora's box" is that "it" only comes out, it doesn't go back in.
Do you get it?
Means once you've said something , it's out there and you cant take it back (simply put)
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritSorry I thought you were referring to Dr. Stephen Meyer, who wrote the
bill gates doesn't have any degrees, his "PHDs" are honorary. but i could be wrong, if you can present evidence of bill gates having a degree in evolutionary biology that he legitimately earned, then he would have the necessary background to make such comments.
now then, back to the proof issue... did you have any? still waiting for that proof.
book on the cell that I had been referring to earlier. This statement by
Bill Gates is only a minor part of the story. However, complex nature
of the DNA program indicates a superior programmer than even the
simplest programs that we know have never come about without a
person to write the programs. Scientifically we determine the truth of
something through observation and testing. There has been many times
that program code has been created to perform actions through computers.
And in all those cases intelligence from a programmer was required to
figure out how to write the code so it would perforn a function. This same
type of coded information has been discovered in the cell by biologists.
But it is far from being a simple code of instructions to perform just one
action that anyone trained in programming could do. These coded
instructions tells the cell how to combine the various proteins in the
correct manner to produce a complex living creature like ourselves. This
and the idea that we know of no other way that this information could
be in the cell other than someone with superior intelligence has placed
it there in the right order to produce these instructions to the cell is what
the book, "Signature in the cell" discusses.
http://www.signatureinthecell.com/
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd it is an idea based on ignorance. Yes you, (and presumably the book writer) know of no other way for the code to have got there. I (and most other people in the world) do know another way - its called evolution.
This and the idea that we know of no other way that this information could
be in the cell other than someone with superior intelligence has placed
it there in the right order to produce these instructions to the cell is what
the book, "Signature in the cell" discusses.
30 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWrong answer. Evolution does not put information in cells and it can not
And it is an idea based on ignorance. Yes you, (and presumably the book writer) know of no other way for the code to have got there. I (and most other people in the world) do know another way - its called evolution.
account for where the original information to produce the first life form
came from and where or how new information comes about. Changes
can only occur with information already there. Where did the information
come from in the beginning?
P.S. Another question the evolutionist do not answer is where proteins
come from in the beginning.
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsMaybe you could explain to us then how God went about creating that which natural selection could not.
Wrong answer. Evolution does not put information in cells and it can not
account for where the original information to produce the first life form
came from and where or how new information comes about. Changes
can only occur with information already there. Where did the information
come from in the beginning?
P.S. Another question the evolutionist do not answer is where proteins
come from in the beginning.
How exactly did he go about putting that information in cells?
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsHow would you know? You fully admit your ignorance of evolution.
Wrong answer. Evolution does not put information in cells and it can not
account for where the original information to produce the first life form
came from and where or how new information comes about.
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't believe in evolution. It does not do anything as far as I am concerned.
How would you know? You fully admit your ignorance of evolution.
And what Darwin thought was natural selection turns out to be changes due
to coded information acting to adapt to the environment as God programmed
it to do. Darwin was ignorant of such things. But Biologist or just beginning
to discover the signature of God in his creation. This reminds me of an
artist signing his artwork and an inventor putting his copywrite notice on his
invention. There is no doubt in my mind that God is the Creator.
30 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsBelief is not required, only understanding.
I don't believe in evolution.
It does not do anything as far as I am concerned.
Because you don't understand what it is. You cannot possibly know if it does anything if you remain wilfully ignorant of what it is.
And what Darwin thought was natural selection turns out to be changes due
to coded information acting to adapt to the environment as God programmed
it to do.
You don't know what Darwin thought because you remain ignorant of such things.
Darwin was ignorant of such things.
How would you know? Does it say so in the Bible?
But Biologist or just beginning to discover the signature of God in his creation.
Creationists have been saying that for over 100 years. When will they stop 'beginning' and come up with something concrete? And why do they have to release their findings on youtube instead of science channels?
There is no doubt in my mind that God is the Creator.
That is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not God is the Creator. The question is whether or not program code can arise without intelligence. You claim it cant because you are afraid that if it can, your religion is a pile of nonsense. But your argument was that you are ignorant of ways in which code can arise without intelligence. I have pointed out that your ignorance is wilful ignorance, and thus your argument is flawed.