New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God

[Youwerecreated]

That is a faulty assumption by evolutionist.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You just contradicted your own theory.

If a family can't be produced by a breed how did birds evolve from dinosaurs ?

How did apes produce humans ?

What did I say that contradicted the theory of evolution? That new species form within a family?

You said thats what i am saying.i said a breed can't produce a family and you agreed. What ever biologist say humans diverged from is a breed.

A family don't produce another family either.

No.........you said new species can form within a family, I agreed, one example being Homo Sapiens forming within the Hominidae family, which you denied. You literally stated 2 exact opposite things in back to back posts.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That is a faulty assumption by evolutionist.

I disagree, and it certainly isn't based on "assumption" but we'll leave that be. If you think the biological classification of families of species are ridiculous, why did you take them seriously and reference them earlier in the thread when you said new species could come about within families?

 

[CryingKoala]

Tak a hike,you don't know me well enough to make such a comment fool.

I can see your silly arguments clear enough. At least 2 other posters seem to think you don't really seem to grasp the nature of Evolution. If you can't handle the brutal truth about your arguments and the big honking glaring flaws in it, so be it.

You are using stock replies from the typical sources. You think you are the only one to claim:

"No evidence of Macro-evolution"
"Its only a theory"
"It just is designed, OK!"

These are old worn out tropes for Creationism. You are not dazzling anyone with your brilliance by using them.

I am waiting for you to claim that "evolution is an atheist conspiracy and the creation scientists are being excluded from the scientific world unfairly"

That being said, if evolution was so flawed, you would have seen thousands of peer reviewed scientific journal articles to support your theory. EVERY biologist would give their kidneys to be the one to come up with a new theory which they could attach their name to. But you don't. What we have is some self-reflexive articles by people who are not taken seriously by any recognized scientific body.

In fact the he National Center for Science Education decided to compile a list-- one with very, very strict guidelines. Each scientist who signed had to agree that creationism was, in fact, silly and that it should not be taught in schools. They had to be from an area of science where their expertise was actually pertinent and, finally, because this apparently needed to be stipulated, they had to be an actual scientist. Oh, and in order to sign, you had to be named Steve or a variant thereof. As it stands, over 1000 Steves are on the list, including Stephen Hawking.

Explaining the reasoning behind the stunt, the scientific community noted that they could have easily compiled a contradicting list of tens of thousands of signatures. But focusing on scientists not named Steve would have taken too much time, and they had things to do.

You sound like later trader did you change screen names ?

I don't need peer reviews to tell me what i am observing in the many labs i worked. That might impress you,but that does not do much for me. Misinformation is accepted all the time do you think peer reviews can't be wrong ?

So you think the science community can't be wrong ?

Well i have been in that community for many years, you're in denial if you deny that there are not ideologues from both sides in the science community. It does effect their presuppositions.

Well you come in to a conversation lobbing insults from the start, how should you be received ?

You definately remind me of later trader. If what i say can't be supported by the evidence then feel free to point it out. Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? if not then sit back and learn

And right on cue you used the trite "scientific community is preventing this from being heard" argument.

Actually I just got here this week after the History Channel boards announced they were closing down. This is a topic which was not uncommon in their religion section.

So your defense is that the scientific community can be wrong so you have to take me seriously. It doesn't work that way. You saying that you worked in labs and whatnot doesn't mean squat online. Nobody has to take that seriously. You can't attack the method of proof for the entire scientific community and then try claim your proof is somehow scientifically provable.

Peer reviewed journals are the bullcrap detectors in science. When scientific evidence is presented to laypeople in an objective setting, a journal article is taken on its own merits when something else would not. Its why its considered an element to introducing scientific evidence in a courtroom.

There is no reason to take any assertion you make concerning scientific research seriously. What you say, isn't supported by evidence.

Since evolution is the accepted scientific notion, you have the burden to prove an alternative. I don't have to disprove you. You have to prove your own point. Shifting burdens of proof is a common tactic of people with unsupportable fringe belief.

The idea that there must be some kind of ideological divide keeping out Creationism doesn't wash. There is too much to gain to be the scientist who can disprove evolution in a reliable fashion.

"Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? i"

Because you are the one who has to produce the evidence. Attacks on evolution theory is not support of Creationism. Its a logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. You have to produce positive evidence for Creationism to support its existence.

You are just annoyed because I am not letting some of your unfounded assumptions used in your arguments go through at face value.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can see your silly arguments clear enough. At least 2 other posters seem to think you don't really seem to grasp the nature of Evolution. If you can't handle the brutal truth about your arguments and the big honking glaring flaws in it, so be it.

You are using stock replies from the typical sources. You think you are the only one to claim:

"No evidence of Macro-evolution"
"Its only a theory"
"It just is designed, OK!"

These are old worn out tropes for Creationism. You are not dazzling anyone with your brilliance by using them.

I am waiting for you to claim that "evolution is an atheist conspiracy and the creation scientists are being excluded from the scientific world unfairly"

That being said, if evolution was so flawed, you would have seen thousands of peer reviewed scientific journal articles to support your theory. EVERY biologist would give their kidneys to be the one to come up with a new theory which they could attach their name to. But you don't. What we have is some self-reflexive articles by people who are not taken seriously by any recognized scientific body.

In fact the he National Center for Science Education decided to compile a list-- one with very, very strict guidelines. Each scientist who signed had to agree that creationism was, in fact, silly and that it should not be taught in schools. They had to be from an area of science where their expertise was actually pertinent and, finally, because this apparently needed to be stipulated, they had to be an actual scientist. Oh, and in order to sign, you had to be named Steve or a variant thereof. As it stands, over 1000 Steves are on the list, including Stephen Hawking.

Explaining the reasoning behind the stunt, the scientific community noted that they could have easily compiled a contradicting list of tens of thousands of signatures. But focusing on scientists not named Steve would have taken too much time, and they had things to do.

You sound like later trader did you change screen names ?

I don't need peer reviews to tell me what i am observing in the many labs i worked. That might impress you,but that does not do much for me. Misinformation is accepted all the time do you think peer reviews can't be wrong ?

So you think the science community can't be wrong ?

Well i have been in that community for many years, you're in denial if you deny that there are not ideologues from both sides in the science community. It does effect their presuppositions.

Well you come in to a conversation lobbing insults from the start, how should you be received ?

You definately remind me of later trader. If what i say can't be supported by the evidence then feel free to point it out. Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? if not then sit back and learn

And right on cue you used the trite "scientific community is preventing this from being heard" argument.

Actually I just got here this week after the History Channel boards announced they were closing down. This is a topic which was not uncommon in their religion section.

So your defense is that the scientific community can be wrong so you have to take me seriously. It doesn't work that way. You saying that you worked in labs and whatnot doesn't mean squat online. Nobody has to take that seriously. You can't attack the method of proof for the entire scientific community and then try claim your proof is somehow scientifically provable.

Peer reviewed journals are the bullcrap detectors in science. When scientific evidence is presented to laypeople in an objective setting, a journal article is taken on its own merits when something else would not. Its why its considered an element to introducing scientific evidence in a courtroom.

There is no reason to take any assertion you make concerning scientific research seriously. What you say, isn't supported by evidence.

Since evolution is the accepted scientific notion, you have the burden to prove an alternative. I don't have to disprove you. You have to prove your own point. Shifting burdens of proof is a common tactic of people with unsupportable fringe belief.

The idea that there must be some kind of ideological divide keeping out Creationism doesn't wash. There is too much to gain to be the scientist who can disprove evolution in a reliable fashion.

"Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? i"

Because you are the one who has to produce the evidence. Attacks on evolution theory is not support of Creationism. Its a logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. You have to produce positive evidence for Creationism to support its existence.

You are just annoyed because I am not letting some of your unfounded assumptions used in your arguments go through at face value.

I did,but you might want to read the whole thread.

But this is what i am asking of evolutionists that i have had no one offer evidence for and or a rebuttal.

This is from Perry Marshall.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

 

[Si modo]

You sound like later trader did you change screen names ?

I don't need peer reviews to tell me what i am observing in the many labs i worked. That might impress you,but that does not do much for me. Misinformation is accepted all the time do you think peer reviews can't be wrong ?

So you think the science community can't be wrong ?

Well i have been in that community for many years, you're in denial if you deny that there are not ideologues from both sides in the science community. It does effect their presuppositions.

Well you come in to a conversation lobbing insults from the start, how should you be received ?

You definately remind me of later trader. If what i say can't be supported by the evidence then feel free to point it out. Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? if not then sit back and learn

And right on cue you used the trite "scientific community is preventing this from being heard" argument.

Actually I just got here this week after the History Channel boards announced they were closing down. This is a topic which was not uncommon in their religion section.

So your defense is that the scientific community can be wrong so you have to take me seriously. It doesn't work that way. You saying that you worked in labs and whatnot doesn't mean squat online. Nobody has to take that seriously. You can't attack the method of proof for the entire scientific community and then try claim your proof is somehow scientifically provable.

Peer reviewed journals are the bullcrap detectors in science. When scientific evidence is presented to laypeople in an objective setting, a journal article is taken on its own merits when something else would not. Its why its considered an element to introducing scientific evidence in a courtroom.

There is no reason to take any assertion you make concerning scientific research seriously. What you say, isn't supported by evidence.

Since evolution is the accepted scientific notion, you have the burden to prove an alternative. I don't have to disprove you. You have to prove your own point. Shifting burdens of proof is a common tactic of people with unsupportable fringe belief.

The idea that there must be some kind of ideological divide keeping out Creationism doesn't wash. There is too much to gain to be the scientist who can disprove evolution in a reliable fashion.

"Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? i"

Because you are the one who has to produce the evidence. Attacks on evolution theory is not support of Creationism. Its a logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. You have to produce positive evidence for Creationism to support its existence.

You are just annoyed because I am not letting some of your unfounded assumptions used in your arguments go through at face value.

I did,but you might want to read the whole thread.

But this is what i am asking of evolutionists that i have had no one offer evidence for and or a rebuttal.

This is from Perry Marshall.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

This has been answered several times in this thread and the inherent flaws in logic it has have been pointed out to you several times.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is a faulty assumption by evolutionist.

I disagree, and it certainly isn't based on "assumption" but we'll leave that be. If you think the biological classification of families of species are ridiculous, why did you take them seriously and reference them earlier in the thread when you said new species could come about within families?

Speaking your language.

I said a new breed can come from within a family but a breed can't produce a new family. That is what you agreed with.

If you don't agree then prove a breed can produce a new family.By the way do you have an answer to what humans nearest ancestor is ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

And right on cue you used the trite "scientific community is preventing this from being heard" argument.

Actually I just got here this week after the History Channel boards announced they were closing down. This is a topic which was not uncommon in their religion section.

So your defense is that the scientific community can be wrong so you have to take me seriously. It doesn't work that way. You saying that you worked in labs and whatnot doesn't mean squat online. Nobody has to take that seriously. You can't attack the method of proof for the entire scientific community and then try claim your proof is somehow scientifically provable.

Peer reviewed journals are the bullcrap detectors in science. When scientific evidence is presented to laypeople in an objective setting, a journal article is taken on its own merits when something else would not. Its why its considered an element to introducing scientific evidence in a courtroom.

There is no reason to take any assertion you make concerning scientific research seriously. What you say, isn't supported by evidence.

Since evolution is the accepted scientific notion, you have the burden to prove an alternative. I don't have to disprove you. You have to prove your own point. Shifting burdens of proof is a common tactic of people with unsupportable fringe belief.

The idea that there must be some kind of ideological divide keeping out Creationism doesn't wash. There is too much to gain to be the scientist who can disprove evolution in a reliable fashion.

"Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? i"

Because you are the one who has to produce the evidence. Attacks on evolution theory is not support of Creationism. Its a logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. You have to produce positive evidence for Creationism to support its existence.

You are just annoyed because I am not letting some of your unfounded assumptions used in your arguments go through at face value.

I did,but you might want to read the whole thread.

But this is what i am asking of evolutionists that i have had no one offer evidence for and or a rebuttal.

This is from Perry Marshall.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

This has been answered several times in this thread and the inherent flaws in logic it has have been pointed out to you several times.

I asked you to point it out yesterday and you never did. I wanted to pick your explanation apart.

 

[Youwerecreated]

And right on cue you used the trite "scientific community is preventing this from being heard" argument.

Actually I just got here this week after the History Channel boards announced they were closing down. This is a topic which was not uncommon in their religion section.

So your defense is that the scientific community can be wrong so you have to take me seriously. It doesn't work that way. You saying that you worked in labs and whatnot doesn't mean squat online. Nobody has to take that seriously. You can't attack the method of proof for the entire scientific community and then try claim your proof is somehow scientifically provable.

Peer reviewed journals are the bullcrap detectors in science. When scientific evidence is presented to laypeople in an objective setting, a journal article is taken on its own merits when something else would not. Its why its considered an element to introducing scientific evidence in a courtroom.

There is no reason to take any assertion you make concerning scientific research seriously. What you say, isn't supported by evidence.

Since evolution is the accepted scientific notion, you have the burden to prove an alternative. I don't have to disprove you. You have to prove your own point. Shifting burdens of proof is a common tactic of people with unsupportable fringe belief.

The idea that there must be some kind of ideological divide keeping out Creationism doesn't wash. There is too much to gain to be the scientist who can disprove evolution in a reliable fashion.

"Why do you bother to make this long drawn out response filled with rehtoric and not evidence shooting down my views ? i"

Because you are the one who has to produce the evidence. Attacks on evolution theory is not support of Creationism. Its a logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. You have to produce positive evidence for Creationism to support its existence.

You are just annoyed because I am not letting some of your unfounded assumptions used in your arguments go through at face value.

I did,but you might want to read the whole thread.

But this is what i am asking of evolutionists that i have had no one offer evidence for and or a rebuttal.

This is from Perry Marshall.

The starting point of this discussion is my central thesis, which is:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that
occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

Perry Marshall

This has been answered several times in this thread and the inherent flaws in logic it has have been pointed out to you several times.

If you did answer it and it's what i am thinking i already poked a hole in it. Are you talking about HGT OR LGT which is the same thing ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you trying to say it's a flawed question ? If so i have to see this explanation.

 

[Si modo]

Are you trying to say it's a flawed question ? If so i have to see this explanation.

Explained in post #44, you replied to it, then it was explained to you again in post #47, to which you again replied.

So, you are, or at least were, well aware of the explanation.

I realize you may not like the explanation, but it has been supplied several times to you, twice by me alone.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you trying to say it's a flawed question ? If so i have to see this explanation.

Explained in post #44, you replied to it, then it was explained to you again in post #47, to which you again replied.

So, you are, or at least were, well aware of the explanation.

I realize you may not like the explanation, but it has been supplied several times to you, twice by me alone.

Thank you for your response. Now i do remember and understad why you were hesitant to copy and paste that answer again

DNA has a code it is a four letter alphabet and i said code or language. The genetic code definition is a form of communication that is also what i asked for.

genetic code (j-ntk)
The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and RNA that serve as instructions for synthesizing proteins. The genetic code is based on an "alphabet" consisting of sixty-four triplets of nucleotides called codons. The order in which codons are strung together determines the order in which the amino acids for which they code are arranged in a protein.

Noun 1. genetic code - the ordering of nucleotides in DNA molecules that carries the genetic information in living cells

code/kōd/


Verb: Convert (the words of a message) into a particular code in order to convey a secret meaning.

Noun: A system of words, letters, figures, or other symbols used to represent others, esp. for the purposes of secrecy. More »

Science iiterature is heavy in my favor that the genetic code is a form of communication.

Now tell me of any form of communication that came to be naturally,abent of intelligence ?

 

[Si modo]

Are you trying to say it's a flawed question ? If so i have to see this explanation.

Explained in post #44, you replied to it, then it was explained to you again in post #47, to which you again replied.

So, you are, or at least were, well aware of the explanation.

I realize you may not like the explanation, but it has been supplied several times to you, twice by me alone.

Thank you for your response. Now i do remember and understad why you were hesitant to copy and paste that answer again

DNA has a code it is a four letter alphabet and i said code or language. The genetic code definition is a form of communication that is also what i asked for.

genetic code (j-ntk)
The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and RNA that serve as instructions for synthesizing proteins. The genetic code is based on an "alphabet" consisting of sixty-four triplets of nucleotides called codons. The order in which codons are strung together determines the order in which the amino acids for which they code are arranged in a protein.

Noun 1. genetic code - the ordering of nucleotides in DNA molecules that carries the genetic information in living cells

Science iiterature is heavy in my favor that the genetic code is a form of communication.

Now tell me of any form of communication that came to be naturally,abent of intelligence ?

The genetic code comes about by a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.

And, you have been told this before, several times, as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Explained in post #44, you replied to it, then it was explained to you again in post #47, to which you again replied.

So, you are, or at least were, well aware of the explanation.

I realize you may not like the explanation, but it has been supplied several times to you, twice by me alone.

Thank you for your response. Now i do remember and understad why you were hesitant to copy and paste that answer again

DNA has a code it is a four letter alphabet and i said code or language. The genetic code definition is a form of communication that is also what i asked for.

genetic code (j-ntk)
The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and RNA that serve as instructions for synthesizing proteins. The genetic code is based on an "alphabet" consisting of sixty-four triplets of nucleotides called codons. The order in which codons are strung together determines the order in which the amino acids for which they code are arranged in a protein.

Noun 1. genetic code - the ordering of nucleotides in DNA molecules that carries the genetic information in living cells

Science iiterature is heavy in my favor that the genetic code is a form of communication.

Now tell me of any form of communication that came to be naturally,abent of intelligence ?

The genetic code comes about by a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.

And, you have been told this before, several times, as well.

If it is not information that comes from a code ,why do they call it a code ?

Why was it claimed they unlocked the Genetic code ?

If our DNA is not a code of information how can a criminologist decide who committed a crime through our DNA ?

It would be easier for you to admit that you gave a bad example of what i asked but if you insist i have a lot more information available from the science community that supports what i am saying.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We get genetic information from both our parents if that is not true why do we get traits fromour parents ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Explained in post #44, you replied to it, then it was explained to you again in post #47, to which you again replied.

So, you are, or at least were, well aware of the explanation.

I realize you may not like the explanation, but it has been supplied several times to you, twice by me alone.

Thank you for your response. Now i do remember and understad why you were hesitant to copy and paste that answer again

DNA has a code it is a four letter alphabet and i said code or language. The genetic code definition is a form of communication that is also what i asked for.

genetic code (j-ntk)
The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and RNA that serve as instructions for synthesizing proteins. The genetic code is based on an "alphabet" consisting of sixty-four triplets of nucleotides called codons. The order in which codons are strung together determines the order in which the amino acids for which they code are arranged in a protein.

Noun 1. genetic code - the ordering of nucleotides in DNA molecules that carries the genetic information in living cells

Science iiterature is heavy in my favor that the genetic code is a form of communication.

Now tell me of any form of communication that came to be naturally,abent of intelligence ?

The genetic code comes about by a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.

And, you have been told this before, several times, as well.

sequencing the human genome may be the greatest accomplishment of all time in the biological sciences


The building blocks of genes



Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions


DNA contains the genetic instructions for all living organisms

Our bodies are made up of some five trillion cells with a multitude of functions. Within the nucleus of almost every one of these cells are long molecules called DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is like an organic blueprint or book of recipes. Your DNA is a genetic code that contains all the instructions needed to make an organism like you, to renew your cells and to keep your body functioning properly.




Nucleotides are the ‘rungs’ in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ of your genetic code


The language of life

DNA molecules are found within the nuclei of your cells and are really long chains of building blocks called nucleotides. These chains form the iconic twisting ladder structure (the double-helix) that was discovered by the Nobel laureates Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953. Nucleotides are the ‘rungs’ in the twisting ladder of DNA molecules. The long chains of DNA form the ‘words’ and ‘sentences’ of your genetic code, in which nucleotides are the ‘letters’. Nucleotides come in four different versions, adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, usually represented by the letters A, T, C and G, respectively. The human genetic code consists of about 3 billion of these four kinds of nucleotides. Each of your cells contains two copies of this genetic code, one inherited from your mother and the other from your father.




The human genome has approximately 20,000 – 25,000 genes


Genes are the most important part of our genetic code

Genes are especially important segments of DNA that directly influence one or more traits. They are relatively small segments of chromosomes, where the sequence of DNA nucleotides encodes a recipe for making a protein. Small differences in the sequence of DNA nucleotides of a particular gene can lead to differences in the structure and behavior of the proteins they encode. It is these differences, in turn, that account for the variable characteristics of the people around you. The human genome has approximately 20,000 – 25,000 genes. Surprisingly, these genes cover only about 5% of our chromosomes. The remaining 95% of our DNA contains either repeated sequences of nucleotides or sequences that have not been revealed as having any function

DNA The Code of Life | The Language of Life | deCODEme

 

[Youwerecreated]

Another word for your vocabulary.


encode (ɪnˈkəʊd)







— vb



1.

to convert (a message) from plain text into code



2.

computing Compare decode to convert (characters and symbols) into a digital form as a series of impulses



3.

to convert (an electrical signal) into a form suitable for transmission



4.

to convert (a nerve signal) into a form that can be received by the brain



5.

to use (a word, phrase, etc, esp of a foreign language) in the construction appropriate to it in that language

 

[Si modo]

Thank you for your response. Now i do remember and understad why you were hesitant to copy and paste that answer again

DNA has a code it is a four letter alphabet and i said code or language. The genetic code definition is a form of communication that is also what i asked for.

genetic code (j-ntk)
The sequence of nucleotides in DNA and RNA that serve as instructions for synthesizing proteins. The genetic code is based on an "alphabet" consisting of sixty-four triplets of nucleotides called codons. The order in which codons are strung together determines the order in which the amino acids for which they code are arranged in a protein.

Noun 1. genetic code - the ordering of nucleotides in DNA molecules that carries the genetic information in living cells

Science iiterature is heavy in my favor that the genetic code is a form of communication.

Now tell me of any form of communication that came to be naturally,abent of intelligence ?

The genetic code comes about by a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.

And, you have been told this before, several times, as well.

If it is not information that comes from a code ,why do they call it a code ?

Why was it claimed they unlocked the Genetic code ?

If our DNA is not a code of information how can a criminologist decide who committed a crime through our DNA ?

It would be easier for you to admit that you gave a bad example of what i asked but if you insist i have a lot more information available from the science community that supports what i am saying.

What is unclear to you, exactly? Nucleic acids are formed through a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.

If you are saying only God can do that, then I am God. I've done it, too.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The genetic code comes about by a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.

And, you have been told this before, several times, as well.

If it is not information that comes from a code ,why do they call it a code ?

Why was it claimed they unlocked the Genetic code ?

If our DNA is not a code of information how can a criminologist decide who committed a crime through our DNA ?

It would be easier for you to admit that you gave a bad example of what i asked but if you insist i have a lot more information available from the science community that supports what i am saying.

What is unclear to you, exactly? Nucleic acids are formed through a series of biochemical reactions in an organism.

If you are saying only God can do that, then I am God. I've done it, too.

I never said that did i ? Why are you avoiding my questions ?

Why are you avoiding answering the question where did the information come from that was the result of the biochemical reactions in organisms ? you deny DNA is a blueprint of what we are and will be ?




DNA-The Blueprint of Life-1





DNA determines the characteristics of all living organisms.
DNA is composed of a four-letter nucleotide/molecule alphabet referred to as A, T, C, and G.
The order of the alphabet determines the characteristics of the living organism, much like the order of letters in our alphabet determines the words.
Each cell in the human body contains >3 BILLION
letters.


Still more logic for you to consider.


DNA: Blueprint for Life


.


by administratoron January 14, 2009.




Tags:.


DNA is short for deoxyribonucleic (dee-ox-ee-rye-bo-new-clay-ick) acid. (Try saying that 3 times real fast!) It is the genetic blueprint, or recipe, for making all living things. Almost every cell in your body contains DNA and all the information needed to make you what you are, from the way you look to which hand you write with.

DNA is shaped like a long ladder that's twisted into a spiral. If all the DNA in just one of your cells was unpacked and stretched out straight, it would be two yards long. Since you have about five trillion (5,000,000,000,000) cells in your body, the total length of DNA packed into you would stretch from here to the sun and back 30 times!

DNA is wound and coiled into structures called chromosomes (crow-mo-somes). In animals, plants, fungi and protists, these chromosomes are enclosed in a compartment within their cells called a nucleus (new-klee-us). In bacteria and archaea, the chromosome is not enclosed in a nucleus and floats free in their cytoplasm (sigh-toe-plazm), the fluid inside cells.

The sides of the DNA ladder are long chains of sugars and phosphates (fahs-fates). The rungs of the ladder are four chemical bases: adenine (add-n-een), guanine (gwa-neen), cytosine (sigh-tuh-seen) and thymine (thigh-meen). Adenine (A) always pairs with thymine (T) and guanine (G) always pairs with cytosine (C).

It's the sequence of these bases that makes up the genetic code or blueprint that determines all of the traits of living things. It may be hard to believe at first—how can things as different as grasshoppers and elephants be built from the arrangement of just four chemical bases?

The genetic code is like a musical score. In music, the instructions for all songs and tunes are created from just eight different notes. These eight notes have been arranged and rearranged in a wide variety of combinations to create the scores for every piece of music ever produced, from a Beethoven symphony to a Beastie Boys rap.

Similarly, the four chemical bases of DNA have been arranged and rearranged in numerous combinations to create the scores, or genomes (gee-nomes), of almost every creature that has ever lived.

Some viruses don't have DNA. Instead, their genetic blueprint is RNA, or ribonucleic (rye-boh-new-clay-ick) acid.

RNA looks like one half of the DNA ladder. It has a single long chain of sugars and phosphates and four chemical bases, though not in pairs. Instead of thymine, RNA has uracil (your-uh-sill) (U).

When RNA viruses infect cells, they first have to use the host cell's machinery to turn their RNA into DNA before they can begin reproducing.

MicrobeWorld - DNA: Blueprint for Life

 

[Youwerecreated]

I believe that is enough to show your view of DNA is mistaken.