Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
any empirical evidence to prove that a sentient force is responsible?ID does not use the same methodology as "Darwinism" so, it is not as scientifically viable
Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.
Copied from previous post for your review and comment:
You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
From Wiki:
"A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"
Also from Wiki:
DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."
"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."
"Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
[edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."
dumb ass statements like this :In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too."DON'T HELP WITH YOUR HUGE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM
since engines and circuit board are not biological YOUR FALSE COMPARISON TO BIOLOGICAL /CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN CELLS IS LAUGHABLE.
any empirical evidence to prove that a sentient force is responsible?Uhh, yes it does. Darwin's method was to study the present to understand the distant past. That is EXACTLY what ID theory does. Funny that you and DAWS just lay down unsupported statements without any substance. Where's the beef?? It is funny how you just remain silent when I ask the really hard questions.
Copied from previous post for your review and comment:
You have totally failed to grasp the concept. Darwin and Lyell both said if we want to understand the distant past, we don't come up with some wacky explanation, we look at what is happening in the present. You really are making it more difficult that it is. In the present, the only source we find for digital code is an intelligent agent, that is, in the case of the binary code, a human is the designer. Therefore, the only known source for digital code in the present is an intelligent agent. Using Darwin's and Lyell's methodology, we can conclude that the digital code in dna (Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) must have had an intelligent source. Unlike Creationism, ID does not get into theological discussions or postulations about who the intelligent source of dna is, only that the best explanation based on the present is that DNA had an intelligent source, and is not from some random process. In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
From Wiki:
"A binary code is a way of representing text or computer processor instructions by the use of the binary number system's two-binary digits 0 and 1. This is accomplished by assigning a bit string to each particular symbol or instruction. For example, a binary string of eight binary digits (bits) can represent any of 256 possible values and can therefore correspond to a variety of different symbols, letters or instructions.
In computing and telecommunication, binary codes are used for any of a variety of methods of encoding data, such as character strings, into bit strings. Those methods may be fixed-width or variable-width. In a fixed-width binary code, each letter, digit, or other character, is represented by a bit string of the same length; that bit string, interpreted as a binary number, is usually displayed in code tables in octal, decimal or hexadecimal notation. There are many character sets and many character encodings for them."
Yeah, cause the ID argument takes a severe leap in logic... DUH, only if you are blinded and brainwashed by Darwinism!!!!"
Also from Wiki:
DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, biomolecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing."
"DNA computing is fundamentally similar to parallel computing in that it takes advantage of the many different molecules of DNA to try many different possibilities at once.[8] For certain specialized problems, DNA computers are faster and smaller than any other computer built so far. Furthermore, particular mathematical computations have been demonstrated to work on a DNA computer."
"Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]
For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
[edit] Data transmissionQuaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits."
dumb ass statements like this :In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too."DON'T HELP WITH YOUR HUGE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM
since engines and circuit board are not biological YOUR FALSE COMPARISON TO BIOLOGICAL /CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN CELLS IS LAUGHABLE.
What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
any empirical evidence to prove that a sentient force is responsible?
dumb ass statements like this :In the present, we find NO random processes producing functional, digital code and information storage and retrieval systems. We don't see V8 engines or circuit boards self assembling in nature. Therefore, what basis do we have to assume that the micro machines in the cell self-assembled. The answer is a resounding NONE!!! To throw out ID is to throw out the very basis of Darwinism, studying the present to understand the past. You can't have your cake and eat it too."DON'T HELP WITH YOUR HUGE CREDIBILITY PROBLEM
since engines and circuit board are not biological YOUR FALSE COMPARISON TO BIOLOGICAL /CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN CELLS IS LAUGHABLE.
What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
I'm not sure which response to laugh at more. Neither of these responses deserve one of my own. You argue pure ridiculousness and ignorance. Keep on arguing against your own deluded perception of what scientists claim. You will always think your right, because your strawman is wrong.
What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
Of course they're different. There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer. There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
Evolution of DNA
Apparently man made machines are the same as living organisms now? The things you learn on the interwebz....
he'll still deny it no matter how many ways it's explained to him .What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
Of course they're different. There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer. There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
Evolution of DNA
what sort of miracles?What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
Of course they're different. There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer. There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
Evolution of DNA
No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.
false declaratory statement.Apparently man made machines are the same as living organisms now? The things you learn on the interwebz....
Yes they are because they could not happen by chance. It stands to reason they both had a designer and a builder.
Apparently man made machines are the same as living organisms now? The things you learn on the interwebz....
he'll still deny it no matter how many ways it's explained to him .What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
Of course they're different. There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer. There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
Evolution of DNA
living things grow (not self assemble) assembly requires individual parts.
the only other non biologic "thing" that grows are crystals.
What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
Of course they're different. There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer. There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
Evolution of DNA
No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.
Do you understand that it "all just happened spontaneously" is precisely the argument you are forwarding in connection with your gods?What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
Of course they're different. There are no scientific laws that could lead to the self-assembly of a machine or computer. There are laws of Chemistry and Physics which can explain the assembly of life.
Evolution of DNA
No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.
You apparently didn't read the cite. No miracles, just science.
Do you understand that it "all just happened spontaneously" is precisely the argument you are forwarding in connection with your gods?What's laughable is your brainwashed understanding that biological machines are somehow on a different scientific level than other machines. Your Darwinist religion drives this thought, because it is devoid of all logic. Your lense is skewed because you are trying to fit the scientific evidence to your belief that it "all just happened spontaneously".
No it doesn't unless you believe in miracles.
You apparently didn't read the cite. No miracles, just science.
Nature is a miracle, it's the explanations where most theories go wrong.
To say DNA evolves is just idiotic,all that is happening is the vast gene pool is at work. Plus you have different lineages constantly crossing and producing offspring that can look different.
Look at all the different looking dogs you get in mutts.
