Creationists

[LOki]

Where did the code come from ?

If by "code" you mean;

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;" But of course, the digits identify the correct amino acid for the molecular machine provide information on which order they should be selected in.
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;" Yes, the specific arrangement of nucleotides identifies which amino acid will be selected for a particular machine.
• "Computing program instructions;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins [You are correct. But comparing dna to binary code in a computer, just like the letter 'A' is a symbol that can be transmitted by a particular order of 0's and 1's, so too can the instructions to build a protein be transmitted by G's, T's, C's, and A's.] so is the protein of symboin living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?

If by "instructions" you mean;

• "a direction calling for compliance;"
• "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
• "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
• "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
• "orders or directions;"
• "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
• "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
• "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions* of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins. *Assumptive language and pathetic attempt at subtle brainwashing. This is the type of stuff poor dear Hollie falls for.

I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.

Bingo Twix. All of the bolded above can be implied. DNA carries instructions, by way of quaternary code, that tell a molecular machine what specific ingredients it needs in what specific order to assemble a component for another molecular machine.

The "ordinary reactions" that Sweetart refers to above assemble complex proteins like this one:

"While the pretty pictures published on book covers and journals are indeed accurate, they only tell part of the story. These images don't represent every possible form of the molecule, or perhaps even the most biologically interesting ones. Rather these are the most stable or crystallizable states, what North Carolina State University physicist Keith Weninger calls “landmarks in a conformational landscape.”

And that's just in vitro; what a protein looks like in vivo may differ even more. “Living cells are amazing things,” Weninger says. “They maintain non-equilibrium conditions; the system keeps gradients that shouldn't exist, and very non-equilibrium flows, and those are hard to reproduce outside of a cell. Those conditions can affect biology, which is why people want to develop high-resolution methods to look at protein structure in cells.”

The Photosystem membrane protein complex, deduced using femtosecond X-ray protein nanocrystallography

I suppose thanks are in order for your unintentional exposition of the logical fallacy you have been applying since I pointed it out to you over 1700 posts ago. No doubt you believe that equivocation is an impenetrable defense for your stolid refusal to acknowledge the facts of reality, but you should now be aware that you have sold yourself out.

As observed over 1700 posts ago, it is only through the function of equivocal language that your specious notions of the genetic code have any traction.

So thank you, for saving me the effort of having to illuminate your bullshit. Thank you very much.

 

[LOki]

Where did the code come from ?

If by "code" you mean;

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
• "Computing program instructions;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

what happens if the instructions are not followed in most cases ?

If by "instructions" you mean;

• "a direction calling for compliance;"
• "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
• "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
• "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
• "orders or directions;"
• "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
• "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
• "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.

I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.

It is a form of communication, ...

If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.

... there is no form of communication that was the product absent of intelligence.

Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).

HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.

You don't see this as a contradiction ?

No.

 

[LOki]

But just keep telling yourself it wasn't designed... it wasn't designed.

Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that the gods did it".

It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.

Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.

Two can play this game because, if it happened by chance, there is a 100% probability that it happened by chance.

 

[UltimateReality]

If by "code" you mean;

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;" But of course, the digits identify the correct amino acid for the molecular machine provide information on which order they should be selected in.
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;" Yes, the specific arrangement of nucleotides identifies which amino acid will be selected for a particular machine.
• "Computing program instructions;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins [You are correct. But comparing dna to binary code in a computer, just like the letter 'A' is a symbol that can be transmitted by a particular order of 0's and 1's, so too can the instructions to build a protein be transmitted by G's, T's, C's, and A's.] so is the protein of symboin living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

If by "instructions" you mean;

• "a direction calling for compliance;"
• "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
• "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
• "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
• "orders or directions;"
• "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
• "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
• "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions* of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins. *Assumptive language and pathetic attempt at subtle brainwashing. This is the type of stuff poor dear Hollie falls for.

I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.

Bingo Twix. All of the bolded above can be implied. DNA carries instructions, by way of quaternary code, that tell a molecular machine what specific ingredients it needs in what specific order to assemble a component for another molecular machine.

The "ordinary reactions" that Sweetart refers to above assemble complex proteins like this one:

"While the pretty pictures published on book covers and journals are indeed accurate, they only tell part of the story. These images don't represent every possible form of the molecule, or perhaps even the most biologically interesting ones. Rather these are the most stable or crystallizable states, what North Carolina State University physicist Keith Weninger calls “landmarks in a conformational landscape.”

And that's just in vitro; what a protein looks like in vivo may differ even more. “Living cells are amazing things,” Weninger says. “They maintain non-equilibrium conditions; the system keeps gradients that shouldn't exist, and very non-equilibrium flows, and those are hard to reproduce outside of a cell. Those conditions can affect biology, which is why people want to develop high-resolution methods to look at protein structure in cells.”

The Photosystem membrane protein complex, deduced using femtosecond X-ray protein nanocrystallography

I suppose thanks are in order for your unintentional exposition of the logical fallacy you have been applying since I pointed it out to you over 1700 posts ago. No doubt you believe that equivocation is an impenetrable defense for your stolid refusal to acknowledge the facts of reality, but you should now be aware that you have sold yourself out.

As observed over 1700 posts ago, it is only through the function of equivocal language that your specious notions of the genetic code have any traction.

So thank you, for saving me the effort of having to illuminate your bullshit. Thank you very much.

I'll take your repeated use and reference to the equivocation fallacy to be on the same level as you FALSELY screaming strawman when you don't have the wherewithal to present a logical rebuttal to an argument. So thank you for making yet again another fallacy accusation which proves your total intellectual dishonesty. Thank you very much. Maybe you don't know what a strawman argument really is... shall I provide a link for you???

 

[UltimateReality]

If by "code" you mean;

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
• "Computing program instructions;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

If by "instructions" you mean;

• "a direction calling for compliance;"
• "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
• "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
• "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
• "orders or directions;"
• "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
• "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
• "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.

I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.

It is a form of communication, ...

If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.

... there is no form of communication that was the product absent of intelligence.

Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).

HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.

You don't see this as a contradiction ?

No.

Why do you FALSELY keep claiming "DNA is a symbol for protein"? Are 0's and 1's a symbol for the letter 'A'?

 

[newpolitics]

Hollie, the only thing she or he ignores are facts.

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.

As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment

 

[LOki]

It is a form of communication, ...

If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.

Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).

HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.

You don't see this as a contradiction ?

No.

Why do you FALSELY keep claiming "DNA is a symbol for protein"?

This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.

Are 0's and 1's a symbol for the letter 'A'?

0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yours, of course, is the mindless prattle used by creationists to justify their beliefs: "the bible is true because I was told the bible is true and because I believe the bible is true it is therefore true". It's a mindless and intellectually dishonest way to come to conclusions about reality but the reality challenged don't have a great need for intellectual honesty.

Creationist dogma will never increase our understanding or knowledge of the physical world because knowledge is antithetical to the creationist. What is not already written in the bible is relegated to the unknowable hand of God moving in his creation. Fear and superstition has caused the Genesis story to be repeated for three thousand years and we know no more of existence now than when that tale was first written by the hand of man. In the last two hundred years of taking a scientific approach to studying the natural world, we have learned most of what we know about how living things work. This seeking of knowledge is what infuriates creationists such as the two fundies in thus thread.

Similarly, to try and find ways to make the Genesis fable fit the natural world is to miss the point of Genesis entirely. There is no reason why angry, jealous gods would need any of the physical processes we know and understand to womp up the universe. All the reinvention and equivocation required by creationists to explain the errors and inaccuracies of biblical tales does nothing to further clarify the absurdities of creationism.

The only legitimate challenge to evolutionary fact and theory would be a competing theory that legitimately fits the criteria for how we define a theory. If such a competing theory existed and provided a better account of the demonstrable facts related to evolution than the current facts and theory, that would be worthy of investigation. Creationism fits no such derinition. Ask a creationist on what basis the creation story could supplant the fact of evolutionary science and we're met with silly demands that the creation story is true because it appears in a book (written by superstitious men), that is true in its entirety "because I was told it was true".

Creationism / ID are neither science nor theory. They do not meet the criteria of science and cannot resolve their internal contradictions. The falsified "quotes" from creationist crackpots and the reliance on lies, deceit and falsehoods to buttress creationist dogma relegates creationism to mythology.

Hollie has been schooled on this numerous times. She continues to borrow parts and pieces of Christian Theology for her fallacious arguments but ignores the pertinent parts of Biblical teaching that God has always existed and pre-dates the Big Bang in order to make her argument appear sound. Only by using some doctrines and not others is she able to make her fallacious, logic-lacking "turtles all the way down" argument and then she keeps repeating it over and over in these pages as if doing so will somehow eventually make the argument valid. Doh! Of course her next post will say nothing to rebut my comments but will trail off into some Ad Hominem attack that involves the terms ICR and Haran Yahya. PATHETIC!!!

And, like an ignorant retard, she will continue to use the term "gods" when referencing a monotheistic religion like Judaism. This is her repeated attempt at a dig against Christians but after being called out about it over 100 times she continues to look more and more like the village idiot because she just can't grasp that it childish and moronic.

Christian creationists will recoil in defensive postures when their sacred cows are challenged. They get defensive when their falsified "quotes" are exposed as frauds and when their gods are identified as serial mass murderers. Christuan creationists get defensive when their cutting and pasting from creationist ministries and Harun Yahya is exposed as fraudulent.

Why do Christian creationist complain about their frauds being exposed?

It looks like by your posts i only see you feeling challenged,your lack of response to questions is revealing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If by "code" you mean;

• "A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy";
• "a system for communication by telegraph, heliograph, etc., in which long and short sounds, light flashes, etc., are used to symbolize the content of a message";
• "a system used for brevity or secrecy of communication, in which arbitrarily chosen words, letters, or symbols are assigned definite meanings."
• "A system of signals used to represent letters or numbers in transmitting messages."
• "A system of symbols, letters, or words given certain arbitrary meanings, used for transmitting messages requiring secrecy or brevity."
• "A system of symbols and rules used to represent instructions to a computer;"
• "a system of letters or symbols, and rules for their association by means of which information can be represented or communicated for reasons of secrecy, brevity, etc.;"
• "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes;"
• "a system of words, letters, figures, or symbols used to represent others, especially for the purposes of secrecy;"
• "a phrase or concept used to represent another in an indirect way;"
• "a series of letters, numbers, or symbols assigned to something for the purposes of classification or identification;"
• "Computing program instructions;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA isn't a symbol for proteins in living things; it is just the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins.

If by "instructions" you mean;

• "a direction calling for compliance;"
• "an outline or manual of technical procedure;"
• "a code that tells a computer to perform a particular operation;"
• "the act of furnishing with authoritative directions;"
• "orders or directions;"
• "commands given to a computer to carry out a particular operation;"
• "the process or act of imparting knowledge;"
• "a part of a program consisting of a coded command to the computer to perform a specified function;"

then I have no idea what you're talking about, because DNA is just a molecule whose effect on the ordinary reactions of protein synthesis promotes specific amino acid sequences in proteins.

I am certain that if there was less room for equivocating in your usage of the terms, I could give you better answers. But then the answers then given wouldn't be consistent with your faith, or subject to typical and predictable red-herring refutations.

It is a form of communication, ...

If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.

... there is no form of communication that was the product absent of intelligence.

Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).

HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.

You don't see this as a contradiction ?

No.

You can balk at the thought of the genetic code being a form of communication all you like and question whether genes are data that get transcribed but there are mountains of literature that agree with my view on this suject.

That being a fact we can infer there is no form of language or a code that was not designed or developed absent of an intelligent mind.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here we have the entirety of the creationist rebuttal to science and knowledge: "its complicated, therefore we knew with certainty that the gods did it".

It's the classical argument from ignorance that defines the creationist agenda.

Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.

Two can play this game because, if it happened by chance, there is a 100% probability that it happened by chance.

Then you do believe in miracles.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.

As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment

You are not really answering the question and you are going against your own theory. The point is traits that help an organism survive and pass on traits why would these traits of survival not be passed on ? Where did these traits go ?

 

[LOki]

It is a form of communication, ...

If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.

Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).

HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

So you assert that this biological code is a product of natural processes abent of intelligence.

You don't see this as a contradiction ?

No.

You can balk at the thought of the genetic code being a form of communication all you like and question whether genes are data that get transcribed but there are mountains of literature that agree with my view on this suject.

All of it question-begging.

That being a fact we can infer there is no form of language or a code that was not designed or developed absent of an intelligent mind.

Equivocation.

 

[LOki]

Not just complicated, but the odds it happened by chance are so small we can say with 100% certainty it didn't happen by chance.

Two can play this game because, if it happened by chance, there is a 100% probability that it happened by chance.

Then you do believe in miracles.

Non-sequitur.

 

[UltimateReality]

Let's try and be honest here. Your "facts" are not facts at all. Let's try and be honest and maybe you can admit that you have cut and pasted falsified "quotes" on more than one occasion even after the "quotes" were exposed as frauds.

This type of dishonesty is rampant among Flat-.Earthers. So yes, not only do I ignore creationist lies as "facts", I call out these lies just as I exposed you as a liar.

Ok let's try this again shall we.

Your theory calls for natural selection allowing organisms with better traits over time passing on these traits that aid in the survival of the species. If humans are related to some of these creatures evolutionist claim,why are none of these superior traits found in the human Genepool ?. Examples of superior traits our relatives possessed and did not pass on to modern day humans.

1. superior eye sight
2. superior land speed
3. superior strength
4. superior sense of smell

This is a tuffy I know but it is a questing that needs a rational explanation if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again.

Are we gonna get a baseless answer like we get when asking about how did life spontaneously start,with zero evidence backing your copy and paste jobs ?

Simple. There would be no evolutionary selective pressure to produce a "super-animal," which is basically what you described. An animal evolves only as much as it needs to survive to pass on DNA. If an animal became over-evoved, it will kill all of its prey, and then it would die out from starvation. There's you're answer.

As an aside, one could argue that humans are over-evolved. We are TOO smart and have over-powered our environment. However, this is because we evolved in emergency, drought conditions in East Africa, and had to learn to become extremely cooperative problem-solvers in order to find food and water. When we emerged from those drought conditions, we were easily able to negotiate and dominate more livable environment

Ahhhh, such a nice story. Please tell me more about what happened. However, you should know that currently, evolution doesn't make such claims as you make above. All it says it the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce and the kinds of organisms that survive and reproduce. The TOE makes no claims about fitness in regards to your description above but only says if the species survived, it must have been the most fit.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie has been schooled on this numerous times. She continues to borrow parts and pieces of Christian Theology for her fallacious arguments but ignores the pertinent parts of Biblical teaching that God has always existed and pre-dates the Big Bang in order to make her argument appear sound. Only by using some doctrines and not others is she able to make her fallacious, logic-lacking "turtles all the way down" argument and then she keeps repeating it over and over in these pages as if doing so will somehow eventually make the argument valid. Doh! Of course her next post will say nothing to rebut my comments but will trail off into some Ad Hominem attack that involves the terms ICR and Haran Yahya. PATHETIC!!!

And, like an ignorant retard, she will continue to use the term "gods" when referencing a monotheistic religion like Judaism. This is her repeated attempt at a dig against Christians but after being called out about it over 100 times she continues to look more and more like the village idiot because she just can't grasp that it childish and moronic.

Christian creationists will recoil in defensive postures when their sacred cows are challenged. They get defensive when their falsified "quotes" are exposed as frauds and when their gods are identified as serial mass murderers. Christuan creationists get defensive when their cutting and pasting from creationist ministries and Harun Yahya is exposed as fraudulent.

Why do Christian creationist complain about their frauds being exposed?

It looks like by your posts i only see you feeling challenged,your lack of response to questions is revealing.

There's nothing challenging about claims to supernaturalism. You just keep repeating the slogans over and over without any effort on your part to substantiate your claims. It's disingenuous to expect that anyone else has any reason to accept your totally unsupported claims to gods, miracles and magic as an answer to the complexity of life on the planet.

You demand unequivocal proof of scientific theory but accept superstitious tales and fables in connection with belief in your gods.

So here we are, still, with you rejecting scientific fact in place of superstition and magic.You continue to evade any rational explanation of how magic was the mechanism used in the hierarchy of super-gods who created your gods.

In fact, it is your lack of response that is revealing.

 

[UltimateReality]

If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.

Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).

HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

No.

Why do you FALSELY keep claiming "DNA is a symbol for protein"?

This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.

Are 0's and 1's a symbol for the letter 'A'?

0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".

Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice. And you incorrect in that the 0's and 1's aren't symbols in computer code. They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron. You can reaname these vaules, but you can't change the electrical and physical properties, the G's, T's... err, I mean the 0's and 1's represtent. Sound familiar???

So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.

 

[UltimateReality]

If acid-base reactions, oxidation-reduction reactions, polymerization reactions, etc... are also forms of communication, then I suppose so ... otherwise, DNA is just a part of an ordinary chemical reaction.

Apparently not. Apparently there are countless forms of communication that are absent of any intelligence (including the obvious poke at superstitious retards).

HOWEVER, I do perceive (even if you do not) how this patently nonsensical notion of yours is fully consistent with your fatuous demand that DNA is a symbol for protein whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

No.

You can balk at the thought of the genetic code being a form of communication all you like and question whether genes are data that get transcribed but there are mountains of literature that agree with my view on this suject.

All of it question-begging.

That being a fact we can infer there is no form of language or a code that was not designed or developed absent of an intelligent mind.

Equivocation.

Great response. Too bad you have relied on equivocation. Are you on that "pick a word from the dictionary and use it for a week" program?

 

[UltimateReality]

Christian creationists will recoil in defensive postures when their sacred cows are challenged. They get defensive when their falsified "quotes" are exposed as frauds and when their gods are identified as serial mass murderers. Christuan creationists get defensive when their cutting and pasting from creationist ministries and Harun Yahya is exposed as fraudulent.

Why do Christian creationist complain about their frauds being exposed?

It looks like by your posts i only see you feeling challenged,your lack of response to questions is revealing.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over ...

I just spit coffee all over my keyboard.

 

[Hollie]

It looks like by your posts i only see you feeling challenged,your lack of response to questions is revealing.

You just keep repeating the slogans over and over ...

I just spit coffee all over my keyboard.

You have something on your chin.

 

[LOki]

Why do you FALSELY keep claiming "DNA is a symbol for protein"?

This tu toque non-sequitur is just as bullshit as the other you keep trying to sell.

Are 0's and 1's a symbol for the letter 'A'?

0's and 1's are among the many symbols that can be used to represent the letter "A".

Riiiiiiight. Except you have it backwards regarding DNA genomesplice.

I don't have anything backwards ... except (apparently) when you wish to accuse me of attacking a strawman.

And you incorrect in that the 0's and 1's aren't symbols in computer code.

I said 0's and 1's ARE symbols in computer code.

They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron.

Hence, the 1's and 0's are ACTUALLY (as I have clearly stated) symbols! "They represent on or off, or in the case of flash memory, the presence of an electron or no electron."

If you substitute electrical and physical properties of a computer with something else, the symbols you posit become irrelevant; you just get a null product. Just as with DNA in a living thing.

You can reaname these vaules, but you can't change the electrical and physical properties, the G's, T's... err, I mean the 0's and 1's represtent. Sound familiar???

This sounds like the instances you agree with me solely for the purposes of accusing me of attacking a strawman; after which, you resume promoting the precise argument you claimed was the strawman.

So just like G's, T's, C's and A's represent the chemical bases in DNA, the 0's and 1's represent an electrical property of the processor or storage medium. You don't have to use 0 and 1 to represent this property, but you can't change the property. Yet, still, the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it.

You're still equivocating, as well as using a false analogy. The function of computer "code" is the manipulation of any symbols that can represent any information, such that any information can be (and is) stored as symbols. As useful as it may be to think of DNA as "code," DNA in living things functions differently.

You're still trying to say that "the information in flash memory is independent of the electrical properties used to store it," but the information in flash memory is still dependent on the electrical properties of the flash memory used to store it, in such a way that without the electrical properties you get nothing.

Which is just a little less dumb a thing to say as: "... dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries," but the informational code is still dependent on the chemistry of the molecule, in such a way that without that particular chemistry you get nothing.

You were wrong over 1700 posts ago ... you're still wrong now, for the same reasons.