Originally posted by C HessYou were there when the flood occurred were you? You have seen what
Well, we know that a flood theory can't explain the neat ordering of strata. There is however one theory that fits well with this evidence. Care to venture a guess?
occurs over time to know you cannot be wrong? Every theory fits the
evidence to those that believe in it.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by lemon limeAnd yet, even the simplest and most basic forms of life self-replicate. This fact is the very reason evolution can explain biological complexity, but not the kind of complexity we see in human-made objects.
First of all, there are good analogies and bad analogies, but an analogy isn't meant to be an exact representation. My analogy doesn't include reproduction because obviously it can't do that...
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by KellyJayTo tell the truth, I've grown weary of repeating myself. Besides, this whole evolution discussion is clearly off topic. Evolutionary theory can explain so called "irreducible complexity". Whether or not you understand that evolution has happened in the past, and is happening today, is besides the point.
You see a gradual build up, I see creatures that are fully developed and
for all we know are not related. You are connecting dots that you really do
know not if they should be connected, I don't care if you do have the time
line correct on when these things were laid down and became fossils. Just
because they may look like something it does not mean the ...[text shortened]... rent layers presents questions about time it does not
not show one life form came from another.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by KellyJayYou have got to be kidding me! Your honor, any theory fits the evidence to those who believe it, and my theory is that my client is innocent. I have faith in that. I expect you'll take this claim seriously no matter what evidence the opposition presents.
You were there when the flood occurred were you? You have seen what
occurs over time to know you cannot be wrong? Every theory fits the
evidence to those that believe in it.
That's just... {sigh} ...I'm out of here. 😞
Originally posted by C HessYes, and is that by design or an accident that required the whole universe
And yet, even the simplest and most basic forms of life self-replicate. This fact is the very reason evolution can explain biological complexity, but not the kind of complexity we see in human-made objects.
to setup to make it happen? I find the grand accident a little bit much to
believe in.
Originally posted by KellyJayDNA absolutely confirms evolution.
I see creatures that are fully developed and
for all we know are not related.
Have a guess what is the closest land relative to dolphins and whales?
The hippo.
An animal that spends much of its time in the water and whose young can swim gracefully underwater.
Have a guess what a dolphins ancestor looked like!
Originally posted by wolfgang59Not so. DNA programming requires intelligent programming and evolution has no intelligence because it does not have a mind. How about using your mind and reason this out instead of regurgitating atheist nonsense. 😏
DNA absolutely confirms evolution.
Have a guess what is the closest land relative to dolphins and whales?
The hippo.
An animal that spends much of its time in the water and whose young can swim gracefully underwater.
Have a guess what a dolphins ancestor looked like!
Oh yeah. My guess is that a dolphin's ancestor looked like a dolphin.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat do you mean by "DNA programming"?
Not so. DNA programming requires intelligent programming and evolution has no intelligence because it does not have a mind. How about using your mind and reason this out instead of regurgitating atheist nonsense. 😏
Oh yeah. My guess is that a dolphin's ancestor looked like a dolphin.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe issue is was there a good design used to form all life we know? The
Not so. DNA programming requires intelligent programming and evolution has no intelligence because it does not have a mind. How about using your mind and reason this out instead of regurgitating atheist nonsense. 😏
Oh yeah. My guess is that a dolphin's ancestor looked like a dolphin.
design would not only have to be in DNA but also in the universe the whole
of creation or the whole of the grand whatever you'd like to call it would all
have to be a part of this.
Those believers in the grand universe accidental setup for creating and
maintaining life have to accept nothing is required, it would just happen as
water would come down to earth in the form of rain.
So when confronted with something so specialized within life it has to be
blown off, with the pat answer to all things unanswerable, given enough
time every issue is resolved. There is no such thing as a complete failure
to the process, since only those things that go forward stick around. The
pat answer for how the word evolution is its best defense for those that
believe it is, only the good go forward. This can only be true if there is
never an acknowledgement that something bad could end it.
More time is the standard answer to so many issues they have no answer
for, yet they demand exact answers for questions no one has for those that
do not agree with them.
Originally posted by RJHindsNo, don't post a link to a YouTube video, just say what you mean by it. Do you mean the specific sequence of base pairs in an individual or the collection of genes in a species? What do you mean by a program?
Programming of Life - DNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4GV1xI-DSQ
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI mean a program similar to what a computer programmer at Microsoft or some other software company makes that gives the computer hardware instructions in performing tasks. 😏
No, don't post a link to a YouTube video, just say what you mean by it. Do you mean the specific sequence of base pairs in an individual or the collection of genes in a species? What do you mean by a program?
Originally posted by KellyJayI am not intelligent enough to know what is necessary to make perfect life and apparently no man alive today is either. I can't say if everything in the universe was necessary before there could be life on earth like us. However, we can probably agree that many things are necessary for any life, as we know it, to exist.
The issue is was there a good design used to form all life we know? The
design would not only have to be in DNA but also in the universe the whole
of creation or the whole of the grand whatever you'd like to call it would all
have to be a part of this.
Those believers in the grand universe accidental setup for creating and
maintaining life have to ac ...[text shortened]... , yet they demand exact answers for questions no one has for those that
do not agree with them.
I was really only referring to the programming information found in the DNA molecule as being necessary for any life, as we know it on earth, to exist, and the fact that such complex programming needs a super intelligent programmer. That is something that is beyond being accomplished by any evolutionary force.
DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics
by Casey Luskin
Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t Be Evil,” but unfortunately, not all who work at the search engine behemoth seem to practice the slogan. Mark Chu Carroll, a mathematician and Google software engineer, called Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell “a rehash of the same old s**t,” even though he admitted, “I have not read any part of Meyer’s book.” Chu Carroll further decried the “dishonesty” of Meyer, whom he called a “bozo” for merely claiming that DNA contains “digital code” that functions like a “computer.”
It seems that Meyer’s book isn’t the only relevant literature that Chu Carroll hasn’t read.
In 2003 renowned biologist Leroy Hood and biotech guru David Galas authored a review article in the world’s leading scientific journal, Nature, titled, “The digital code of DNA.” The article explained, “A remarkable feature of the structure is that DNA can accommodate almost any sequence of base pairs—any combination of the bases adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T)—and, hence any digital message or information.” MIT Professor of Mechanical Engineering Seth Lloyd (no friend of ID) likewise eloquently explains why DNA has a “digital” nature:
It’s been known since the structure of DNA was elucidated that DNA is very digital. There are four possible base pairs per site, two bits per site, three and a half billion sites, seven billion bits of information in the human DNA. There’s a very recognizable digital code of the kind that electrical engineers rediscovered in the 1950s that maps the codes for sequences of DNA onto expressions of proteins.
DNA’s computer-like attributes have also been noted by leading thinkers. Software mogul Bill Gates said, “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.” Francis Collins—head of the Human Genome project and a noted proponent of Darwinism, describes DNA as a “digital code,” and observes that “DNA is something like the hard drive on your computer” that contains “programming.” Even Richard Dawkins has observed that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”
The Factory Cell
But what is the computer code doing? It turns out that it’s programming nothing less than nanotechnology—micromolecular machines inside the cell. In the words of Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”
For Chu Carroll to ignore the many leading evolutionary scientists and thinkers who have compared the cell to computers or machines, and instead to accuse Meyer of “dishonesty” is, well, a low form of argument that the Google motto probably prevents us from naming. But where in our experience do digital code, computer programming, and factories filled with machines come from? Chu Carroll knows the answer, which is probably why he doesn’t like Meyer’s argument. •
Originally posted by lemon limeThe average atheist evolutionists will not honestly investigate the evidence for intelligent design because they are too proud to admit they have been wrong in believing the atheist lie of evolution or evil-lution. 😏
DNA’s Programming Really Bugs Some ID Critics
by Casey Luskin
Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t Be Evil,” but unfortunately, not all who work at the search engine behemoth seem to practice the slogan. Mark Chu Carroll, a mathematician and Google software engineer, called Stephen Meyer’s Signature in the Cell “a rehash of the same old s**t,” even thou ...[text shortened]... me from? Chu Carroll knows the answer, which is probably why he doesn’t like Meyer’s argument. •