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.
Your two questions presuppose your answer. Yet, as we see with regularity, your assumptive presuppositions are absent verification. You assume your designer, programmer gawds have an active hand in designing / programming enzymes but your only supporting evidence is your standard " because I say so", claim.I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
What are Enzymes?
New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
how cute! YWC has discoverd emotocons !This is funny
You learned today evidence of the programmer, the one we call creator.
I really need to explain this to you,really ? I just gave you that evidence that Enzymes can and were programmed to perform functions.
Now who programmed them in the beginning ?
You have zero evidence that they evolved these abilities and we have evidence they can and were programmed so who is the programmer ?
You wanted evidence of the programmer you have it.
What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria’s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria’s ability to survive and reproduce.
What are Enzymes?
New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children’s illness
So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
he's been told that countless times but like the true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria’s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria’s ability to survive and reproduce.
What are Enzymes?
New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children’s illness
So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
he's been told that countless times but like the true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
What are Enzymes?
New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
Bigot? Hardly.
You've made nonsensical, irrational statements not supported by any data and then, when that's turned around and used on you, you immediately squeal "Bigot!"
And there's nothing here for me to prove that you haven't already done is spades.
Sorry to have made you so uncomfy.
What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.
"God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."
That's an irrational statement.
Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'. That, and there is no "ID theory".
Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.
I can think of two. Sicklemia for those in certain environments where it is beneficial (african americans in environments containing malaria). Although this one is a double edged sword, as it poses the potential for sickle cell anemia, it does confer an advantage in fending off the disease in that environment. Don't try and tell me this isn't at all adaptive. It may not be the best example, but it does demonstrate that which you asked about. Within that environment, this would be an advantage and lead to greater survivability. Out of that environment, it is simply a burden.
A better example is the mutation that europeans underwent at around 5,000 B.C. which allowed to them digest lactase past infancy and into adulthood, and which many of us possess today. This was a result of having had domesticated animals the last 6,000 years before that (since 11,000 BC), which is the only reason we were drinking mammalian baby food from another species. As hunter-gathers, before animal domestication and the advent of agriculture (the two things which allowed us to settle down in one place and start civilization), this simply would not have happened. It is not natural for us or any species to drink what is essentially baby-food past the time when we are babies. Being "lactose intolerant" is actually the normal state for most mammals as adults. It is this mutation that allows those of european decent to metabolize lactase without issue. Therefore, it could be argued, that they could glean a larger amount of nutrients from their diet throughout their lifespan, and added another food source for them, which they could control through domestication. This would have conferred a great survival advantage, allowed them to lead longer, healthier lives, and to feed more people, creating more chance for procreation, thus passing on the mutation, which we now experience as the ability to digest lactose.
(Being a vegan, I am vehemently opposed to dairy consumption, because of the unethical nature inherent in the production process of factory farming (check out Earthlings.com | A Film by Nation Earth for the inside scoop). I ask anyone open to learning about where there food comes from to go to that website and watch the movie. Please!)
So you would deny evolution?? You body is made for meat consumption.
Yes, I would deny evolution. Evolution isn't a mind. I am not offending evolution. My reasons are purely ethical, and the claim that "my body is made for meat consumption" is not entirely accurate. We are omnivores, only after being herbivores long before. Earlier species of hominid were herbivorous, such as Lucy (Australopithecus). We came into meat at some point, and evolved to be able to eat it. Therefore, primarily, we are herbivorous. However, marketing would have you believe you need to be eating meat at every meal, which is probably the biggest cause of cancer in the modern world, especially with the amount of growth hormones and antibiotics present in animal flesh, as well as fecal matter. Try watching the movie Earthlings, if you are interested in learning the awful truth about how we treat other sentient, living beings. I realize your bible instructs you to not care about them, but you could have a little humanity. The only thing I would be dependent on meat for is B12, which I supplement. Problem solved. Go vegan.
sorry shit head god is not....the word "creator" is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.since god is not mentioned in the constitution i think you're on the wrong thread.
hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.
So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
this is an argument from ignorance, again. You can't imagine how something like this system would arise, so... god or aliens did it. Breathtaking... really, it is.
That is all YOU can do is imagine. Because their is no modern occurrence of this happening anywhere in nature and no evidence of it randomly occurring in the past.
Why would there be another modern occurrence of abiogenesis? Mind, explaining this to me? You seem to think, fallaciously, that because we don't witness this, it means it never happened. Well, excuse, but that is simply stupid. The fact that there are microbes on every habitable inch of this earth, utilizing whatever organic material is around them- including amino acids and proteins, precludes the very possibility that another abiogenetic event would occur, simply because the materials needed to produce such an even would be sought after, competitively, by existing microbes. Not only are organic elements competitively sought after, but any new entrants into an ecosystem, whether foreign or abiogenetically spawned, would be seen as outsiders, and if unable to defend themselves, would be "used" by the already existing life. Most certainly, an abiogenetically spawned organism would have no ability to defend itself. Further, if such a modern event did happen, how would we be able to distinguish this from the existing life there. Perhaps it would appear to us only to be a "new species"? Life doesn't come with a timestamp on it.
sorry shit head god is not....the word "creator" is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.hollowhead tried arguing this and got totally owned. God is absolutely mentioned in the constitution. Now maybe not in the context to which you are referring, but he is definitely mentioned.
So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
Hey daws, I'll interpret and clarify what the fundie christian creationist has managed to lie and misrepresent.
My earlier statement was that "god" was not mentioned in the wording of the constitution. My fundie stalker missed the phrase "wording of the constitution", Further, my post delineated the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that no single religion be acknowledged in the wording of the constitution.
The slathering fundie, insisting on forcing his gawds into the constitution (obviously not what was intended by the Founding Fathers), claimed that a closing salutation "... in the year of our lord" (note, "god" is nowhere mentioned), contradicted my comment.
The frantic fundie still doesn't want to acknowledge his lie and further, is forced into juvenile name-calling in failed attempts to resurrect his still failed credibility.
thanks.sorry shit head god is not....the word "creator" is in pre amble and it's intentionally ambiguous.
So your insistence that god is, is subjective.
Hey daws, I'll interpret and clarify what the fundie christian creationist has managed to lie and misrepresent.
My earlier statement was that "god" was not mentioned in the wording of the constitution. My fundie stalker missed the phrase "wording of the constitution", Further, my post delineated the clear intent of the Founding Fathers that no single religion be acknowledged in the wording of the constitution.
The slathering fundie, insisting on forcing his gawds into the constitution (obviously not what was intended by the Founding Fathers), claimed that a closing salutation "... in the year of our lord" (note, "god" is nowhere mentioned), contradicted my comment.
The frantic fundie still doesn't want to acknowledge his lie and further, is forced into juvenile name-calling in failed attempts to resurrect his still failed credibility.
the old year of our lord ploy !
LOL! Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
Once again.
Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
Once again, since you're trapped in a web of your own distortions: there is no 'programming' there.
You're only interested in playing cutsie-poo semantic games, and have no real command of even rudimentary science, of you wouldn't be copying and pasting what others have written, and you'd understand why it doesn't apply to the bullshit you're trying to sell.
You actually have zero idea how penicillin works, and wallpapering others statement over that fact simply can't hide that you have zero idea about this.
I'm through with you, you scientifically illiterate tool factory. You cut & paste like a good little trained monkey, but that's about it.
Up your meds.
LOL! Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
Who engineered Enzymes in the beginning to locate and correct errors during DNA replication ?
Nobody. You are looking at this through the eyes of a theist. You need to be looking at this through the eyes of a scientist.
LOL! Your utter dishonesty and scientific illiteracy is bracing, to say the least.
What penicillin does doesn't involve 'programming', in inactivates transpeptidase and hence the cell wall is destroyed.
What you're doing here is simply playing semantic games, and rather obviously trying to distract from the fact that you know nothing about the subject, or you wouldn't be attempting to falsely characterize what, in this case, penicillin does by labeling it 'programming'.
Once again.
Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
I don't see how this demonstrates a designer at all. All you are doing is describing something. A description is not evidence.
What is your evidence? That it seems too amazing to you that they could be "programmed" by purely natural means? Oh yeah. That's some evidence.
You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacteria’s enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacteria’s ability to survive and reproduce.
What are Enzymes?
New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare children’s illness
So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
how cute! YWC has discoverd emotocons !
You learned today evidence of the programmer, the one we call creator.
What you learned is that specious claims to your imagined gawds have been rejected as unsupported and unsupportable. Your bellicose claims are laughable in their lack of validity and your steadfast refusal to deal honestly with your lack of credibility.
he's been told that countless times but like the true willfully ignorant, zealot, nut job ,slapdick he is ,denying it is all he can do.You never heard of biologically engineered Enzymes ? You wanted evidence I gave it to you now you want to move the goalposts ?
Our ability to alter enzymes by inhibiting their functioning abilities has resulted in hundreds of life saving drugs. One example is penicillin, a well-known antibiotic that can cure syphilis, pneumonia, and other illnesses. Penicillin works by bonding to the active sites of the disease-causing bacterias enzymes, ultimately destroying the bacterias ability to survive and reproduce.
What are Enzymes?
New study: genetically engineered enzyme boosts treatment for rare childrens illness
So I ask you again, who programmed them in the beginning to find and correct errors during DNA replication ?
Will you now resort to intellectual dishonesty by denying the obvious ?
The question is premature. You can not start asking "Who?" until you establish "that" a programmer exists. You have not done so, so the question is non-sensical.
Funny, the first cell didn't evolve
If I know what significance you place on this, then: That the particulars of the beginning of process which proceeds forward in time is not known does not mean that the particulars of the output of the process cannot be known over a period of time between the beginning and the present, to a particular degree of accuracy, and in a particular scope.
If what you were thinking when you wrote it had nothing to do with that, then nevermind. But regardless of how much you dislike it, if I know the comments you are referencing, they are meant in the sense of what is described in the preceding sentence, and in that sense the origin, while obviously not having nothing to do with what comes after, is not required to know of more recent events.
I think it is very easy to accept the belief of a designer when you look at the precision is nature. How can a rational person believe that life came from an undirected process that produced complex organic molecules from simpler inorganic molecules through chemical reactions with an undirected process.
To believe an undirected process took an enviornment filled with chaos and produced the precision in nature we can now see is a stretch of the imagination.
Thank you for admitting though that there is no known process concerning the origins of life because a few of the simpletons here easily accepted abiogenesis as a fact.
What nonsensical statements? Are you referring to my discussions on ID Theory? It not, then the only other statements I've made since you showed up are religious in nature, in which case if your comments were directed at those makes you a bigot.
"God knew when he created the earth that man would sin. But in his wisdom he also knew the glory that would come from the sacrifice of his Son to pay they debt for man's sin."
That's an irrational statement.
Pointing out that that is, indeed, an irrational statement, isn't being a 'bigot'. That, and there is no "ID theory".
Please try and refrain from attempting to reference or use words you clearly don't know.
Why don't you come back when you can actually add a logical thought to the discussion. Thanks for playing.
