Creationists

[cbirch2]

I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.

There is nothing other than secular science. Science is by definition secular. If your definition of "real science" is science that is biased towards one faith, then your a fucking idiot.

Only to the Ideologues. You forget all the creationist that were first in the sciences ?

Science cannot be religious. Science must have absolutely zero presumptions. Science has to to unbiased in pursuit of the facts. We tried religious science, and it taught us a flat earth with the stars embedded in crystal spheres. Science doesnt reject god; science has absolutely no opinion on god until someone can prove otherwise.

Only an ideologue would reject a specific faith into science. You can be a scientists and remember the entire time that there is a god behind your work. But you cant build science around a specific religion that has no fact behind it. Science is the observation and explanation of facts, you cant just base that on things that come from a book and cant be verified.

 

[cbirch2]

I am still waiting for someone to provide a code or language or some form of communication with empirical evidence that it cane in to existence naturally absent of intelligence ? How bout mutations being the same thing as noise to a electronic signal and the questions I asked.

What the fuck!

IM POINTING YOU TO DNA YOU GOD DAMN MORON.

Nucleotides form naturally therefore the code for DNA forms naturally because nucleotides are the code for DNA.

Game set match now shut the fuck up.

I am headed to church but when I get time I will refute this nonsense you said here.

Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.

So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.

 

[FurthurBB]

How is it a lie ? if man thinks he knows how God did it there would be no discussion.

Because we have witnessed macroevolution. As you have been told at least 10 times.

There is no real scientist that will say they saw macro-evolution occurr. They have saw micro-adaptations but never macro-evolution. If you are speaking of Douglas Theobald his evidence of macro-evolution has been thouroughly refuted.

When you make a comment like this you are going agains't the science community we can not see macro-evolution in our lifetime because it takes too long.

Bacteria that Theobald said evolved was nothing more then adapting bacterium they were still bacterium.

That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.

Sorry to disappoint you but it was not macro-evolution that was observed.

Douglas Theobald has not been thoroughly refuted, and of course bacteria are still going to be bacteria. Just like in ring species salamanders are still salamanders. What would you expect them to be?

 

[FurthurBB]

I don't lie,I give my opinions. Must you continue to try and insult me with your posts ?

Doesn't it make you look like a small person ?

What I am supposed to say when someone continuously lies like you do? You are not giving opinions when you say that macroevolution has never been witnessed when it has. You are obviously not giving your opinion when you misrepresent what other people just said to you. Is it an insult to call a someone a thief when they just absconded with your purse? Is it an insult to call someone a murderer when you just witnessed them murdering someone? I think not.

You say I am a liar because I don't support your theory, not because you can refute or answer the questions put to you.

2 more complete lies in the last two posts. It is ridiculous.

 

[FurthurBB]

Filerosophila speciation experiment.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again a cool simple speciation experiment done in middle schools.

 

[eots]

Gandhi speaks on light, truth and love - YouTube

 

[Youwerecreated]

You proved something?

I remember you reading a bunch of bible verses and showing it off as proof.

God has never given anyone leprosy. 6000 years ago idiot goat-herders thought god was punishing them because they didnt understand that they had come in contact with a bacteria. they contracted leprosy just like anyone does today.

Prove to me that god has infected someone with leprosy. And remember that the bible is not proof of the bible. If the bible says that god gave someone leprosy, that matters to me about as much as JK Rowling saying voldemort gave harry potter his scar.

Well according to your side they support what those supposedly ignorant goat herders wrote.

So since you totally avoided the question i assume your going to stop saying god gave people leprosy?

Why would I do that,the scriptures say he did.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is nothing other than secular science. Science is by definition secular. If your definition of "real science" is science that is biased towards one faith, then your a fucking idiot.

Only to the Ideologues. You forget all the creationist that were first in the sciences ?

Science cannot be religious. Science must have absolutely zero presumptions. Science has to to unbiased in pursuit of the facts. We tried religious science, and it taught us a flat earth with the stars embedded in crystal spheres. Science doesnt reject god; science has absolutely no opinion on god until someone can prove otherwise.

Only an ideologue would reject a specific faith into science. You can be a scientists and remember the entire time that there is a god behind your work. But you cant build science around a specific religion that has no fact behind it. Science is the observation and explanation of facts, you cant just base that on things that come from a book and cant be verified.

Why do you say this ?because your side believes it all happened naturally with no proof.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What the fuck!

IM POINTING YOU TO DNA YOU GOD DAMN MORON.

Nucleotides form naturally therefore the code for DNA forms naturally because nucleotides are the code for DNA.

Game set match now shut the fuck up.

I am headed to church but when I get time I will refute this nonsense you said here.

Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.

So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.

The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because we have witnessed macroevolution. As you have been told at least 10 times.

There is no real scientist that will say they saw macro-evolution occurr. They have saw micro-adaptations but never macro-evolution. If you are speaking of Douglas Theobald his evidence of macro-evolution has been thouroughly refuted.

When you make a comment like this you are going agains't the science community we can not see macro-evolution in our lifetime because it takes too long.

Bacteria that Theobald said evolved was nothing more then adapting bacterium they were still bacterium.

That is not macro-evolution that is micro-adaptations.

Sorry to disappoint you but it was not macro-evolution that was observed.

Douglas Theobald has not been thoroughly refuted, and of course bacteria are still going to be bacteria. Just like in ring species salamanders are still salamanders. What would you expect them to be?

Macro-evolution is not macro-adaptations, it is a new destinct family that evolved from a previous family.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Filerosophila speciation experiment.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again a cool simple speciation experiment done in middle schools.

I worked with mutations of the drosophila and the mutations did not create a new organism fact is more harm came from the mutations. They were either weakened or deformed from the mutations even the mutations that caused no change shortened the lives of the flies.

We saw an extra pair of wings that didn't work,missing antennas, missing legs,no wings I saw no mutation that improved the flies and were a benefit to them.

 

[Montrovant]

I am headed to church but when I get time I will refute this nonsense you said here.

Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.

So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.

The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.

Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?

I think you are latching too strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.

 

[FurthurBB]

Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.

So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.

The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.

Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?

I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.

And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong. Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok well nucleotides are the basic unit of DNA code, that is fact. So your not going to refute that, or at least i really hope you arent.

So the only thing that leaves for you to refute is the notion the nucleotides form naturally, which i think you will find difficult.

The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.

Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?

I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.

Communication theory requires three steps. Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

In order to reproduce itself , make a copy of itself, the cell employs an information encoding system called the genetic code
The encoded information is stored as you well know in the DNA molecules inside the nucleus of a cell.


The information is stored using the genetic code and a transcription system is employed to read the information encoded by the DNA molecules .

The amount of information stored is enormous and the encoding and decoding system employed is just like communication systems designed by humans.

So whats communicating you ask.

The nucleus of the cell and the protein factory found in the endoplasmic reticulum.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The genetic code is a language and no language can happen absent of intelligence.

Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?

I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.

And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong. Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.

You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

Is that not the same as any code or language ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The next qustion well it don't have meaning, yes it does the meaning is the cause and effect of the information decoded.

 

[FurthurBB]

Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?

I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.

And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong. Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.

You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

Is that not the same as any code or language ?

Wow! How is it coded, how is it transmitted? I guess one out of three is not bad for you though.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong. Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.

You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

Is that not the same as any code or language ?

Wow! How is it coded, how is it transmitted? I guess one out of three is not bad for you though.

Oh boy

 

[Youwerecreated]

And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong. Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.

You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

Is that not the same as any code or language ?

Wow! How is it coded, how is it transmitted? I guess one out of three is not bad for you though.

1. DNA tape ,Message in DNA alphabet, DNA tape,Nucleic, RNA,polymerase.

2. Encoding, DNA alphabet to mRNA alphabet,transcription.

3. channel mRNA message into RNA alphabet.

4. Noise, point mutation, genetic noise.

5. Channel,mRNA message + genetic noise.

6. Decoding translation, Genetic noise mischarged tRNA, amino aclyated tRNA, amino acyl synthetases tRNA amino acids.

7. Protein message in protein alphabet,protein tape.

You were given.

Source tape, The channel code, and then the destination alphabet.

 

[LOki]

Who is communicating with who through this 'language'?

I think you are latching to strongly onto certain terms and then applying them inappropriately.

And doing it on purpose because they know that used correctly it can do nothing but prove their premise wrong. Another example of being dishonest for Jesus.

You really are ignorant of the genetic code. It requires Coding, transmitting, and decoding.

Is that not the same as any code or language ?

"Code" in genetics, and "code" in language mean different things--they are comparable, they are analogous, but they ARE NOT the same thing. You continue to be wrong about this, and you continue to demonstrate that you have purposefully embraced a most fundamental misunderstanding of genetics to advance your retarded point.