What a laugh--Meyer the liar leaves out the entire class of Prokariotes, which have no nucleus. He also leaves out viruses which not only often have not only no nucleus, but no organelles and no DNA. Meyer is a total fraud who is a statistitian, not a scientist.
@mexicandruglord Meyer's claims include neither prokariotes or viruses--his entire assertion fails, as does yours. Meyer is a fraud and incompetent, a poor scientist whose forte is statistical manipulation of data. perhaps he thinks he can manipulate his all listeners as easily as you were. He can't.
@TheLizardPeople So what are you disagreeing with? It seems as though you just don't like him and because of your dislike of him, you're hand waving and crying? Maybe you could actually cite what it is, that's upsetting you because your first attempt about viruses bot having DNA was false.
@mexicandruglord 1) His description of cells is false, as noted 2) His description of the role of DNA in cells is incorrect.3) His assumptions about intelligent design are false and he also lies. 4) His assumption about DNA being digital are wrong--it isn't digital, or binary for that matter. 5) His assumptions about proteins and their roles are incorrect. 6) His claims about the role of protein shape and function are incorrect--he ignores the role of chemistry altogether, not surprisingly.
BTW, Lenteviruses have no DNA; polioviruses have no DNA, nor do rotaviruses,Bymoviruses, comoviruses, nepoviruses, nodaviruses, picornaviruses, potyviruses, sobemoviruses and a subset of luteoviruses. Also Carmoviruses, dianthoviruses, flaviviruses, pestiviruses, tombusviruses, single-stranded RNA bacteriophages, hepatitis C virus and a subset of luteoviruses . And Alphaviruses, carlaviruses, furoviruses,and hepatitis E virus. Shall I go on, or is that enough to demonstrate? Meyer is a fraud..
@TheLizardPeople 1) You were wrong as I explained to you that some viruses have DNA and RNA. 2) You're wrong. 3) wrong again, you should try and support your argument with substance. 4) This is an analogy - get over it. 5) You're wrong once again. Please produce substance here. 6) And wrong once again. If you're referring to tertiary proteins or quaternary proteins then say so because you're sounding like a drunk.
@mexicandruglord 1] ALL viruses have RNA;others,listed, have ONLY RNA.2]false 3] false again see Kitzmiller vs. Dover 4]It is a false analogy 5] see 1 and 2--there are cells that have no proteins. 6] He ignores the role of chemistry altogether. Meyer the liar is NOT a Biologist, a Biochemist, a Zoologist, a Crytptozoologist or anything esle but a statistician, and he has it completely wrong. ID has been defined as religion under US federal law, and admitted so by the originator of the concept.
@TheLizardPeople Get a grip man, you're sounding insane. Not all viruses have DNA, I said "some". Get over that trial it was in 2005 - we are living in 2011 soon to be 2012 and guess what? Science progresses!
@mexicandruglord "your first attempt about viruses not having DNA was false." YOUR WORDS! Meyer the liar is not competent to comment in this field--the Prokariotes he left out have very different internal functions from those which Meyer the liar describes. Then, because he doesn't understand, it is not surprising. FYI, Prokariotes are one of the largest groups of life forms on Earth. And of course, most RNA viruses do not function like Eukariotes either.Same for Archaea, which Myer forgot too.
The recent work of John Sutherland (abiogenesis of RNA) and Jack Szostak (self replicating systems) is leading us out of the darkness and ever closer to solving this question.
It is interseting that Dr. Meyer chooses to ignore their work but instead quotes Huxley from 150 years ago.
C'mon Stephen, keep up with the current literature if you are going to pretend to be knowledgable.
The RNA world concept of RNA somehow eventually leading to the assembly of even the most basic DNA (single-celled life, like bacteria) is more religion then actual science.
So I'm not shocked Dr. Meyer wouldnt mention pseudo-science (like the RNA to DNA myth)
You know what's crazy? They've recently shown that the genome is NOT limited to the sequence of the DNA molecule, but extends into the RNAs. If this is true, this could lead to the complete and utter collapse of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. I'm trying to gather data on this, will keep you posted.
First, you need a universal definition of information, not Shannon information (which is informational capacity), but actual information, which conveys meaning, like in DNA. Then you need to show examples of where this information arises in nature via natural law. There are ZERO examples. Life is the only SUPPOSED example. Life IS information. The laws of science and probability point to mind NOT undirected processes as the cause of the genetic expression system. Show otherwise.
If there was ANY remote evidence of true abiogenesis, it would be all over the peer-reviewed journals and even the net
The idea of DNA forming from accident, or from RNA forming DNA is so laughable that even NON Creationist Biologists like Dr. Francis Crick (the molecular biologist that co-discovered DNA) stated that it was as likely as a Jumbo Jet being fully formed by a hurricane over a junkyard___quote from his book Life Itself
Hmmmm, I am guessing from your uninspired, lifted right from the pages of Answers in Genesis, reply that you did not even bother to watch the video by cdk007 that I recommened to you.
Too bad, you might have learned something before spouting off such nonsense.
And BTW it was Fred Hoyle, not Crick, who made the comment about a junkyard and an airplane. Seems like you are not even good at quote mining
Unfortunately, the work you refer to requires an ever increasing amount of intellectual foresight by chemists. At the same time, it increasingly recedes from any plausible naturalistic scenario. If you want to refute Stephen, you need to account for the sequence of the DNA which is not chemically determined, but INFORMATIONALLY determined. Bring your best data and solve the riddle, otherwise you are just another case of special pleading.
"Unfortunately, the work you refer to requires an ever increasing amount of intellectual foresight by chemists."
No, not really it just takes some intellectual ability. From there chemistry takes over for itself.
The boundary between nonliving and living is almost nonexistant. Even Aristotle noted this, he just lacked the knowledge of chemistry to demonstrate it.
Sutherland and Szostak are getting really close to that boundary.
All one needs to do is actually read about the origin of life to understand that what Sutherland is doing is not scientifically related to the origin question. Making nucleotides (as Urey did decades ago) is not the same as making a viable genetic expression system. The gulf between organic chemistry and a living system is far greater than the gulf between all of the basic kinds of life. Always remember, nucleotide sequencing is NOT chemically determined.
Creationists howl that RNA could not have been the original information/enzymatic molecule because there is no simple way to abiogenically synthesize it. Sutherland has shown that is not true. He can make two of the four nucleotides quite easily under plausible early Earth conditions.
Abiogenesis - 1
Creationists - 0
BTW Stanley Miller never claimed to have made RNA nucleotides
BBTW you could learn something too by watching the video I mention below.
Miller created amino acids (what I meant to say). Sutherland created nucleotides. Both used speculative early earth parameters. Your grasping at thin air. Knowing how to synthesize the chemical constituents is irrelevant. They have already found these constituents in extraterrestrial rock.
The problem, which you can't seem to grasp, is the functional sequencing, and the replication of said functional sequences without a template/catalyst/structural relationship. Think on it.
I've watched his imaginative video. Until it is either observed, or demonstrated, it's nothing more than CGI enhanced conjecture.
What you willingly fail to acknowledge is that my "beliefs" are based upon observations. I clearly see that the functional sequences of DNA/RNAs is not based upon chemical determinism. You on the other hand refuse to even address it. Why is that? No refuting evidence (because you have offered zero so far)? Or you don't understand it?
Like I said before, I'm in this to debate the truth. If I happen to fall on the side of Stephen and gang, it's as irrelevant as you happening to fall on the side of Darwin and gang.
I'm not a flawless intellect. But in my estimation this is more about the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves.
Here we go again. You are back in trolling mode. It's pretty funny how you start following me around on youtube, trying to make fun of me when it's crystal clear that the objections I have raised are beyond your ability to comprehend, let alone refute. But it's okay, I'm well aware of your limited intellect and your anti-religious frustrations.
"Where doe an organisms compliment of DNA come from?"
if you'd like me to answer, either ask the question with more articulation, or perhaps you could give me the answer, because I don't know the answer. I'm not exactly sure what you are even trying to ask.
There are no talking snakes that make magic fruit sound even so much more appealing that a lady made from a rib eats it and makes mortality, sickness, and period pain with that naked move......
But there do exist things such as mortality, sickness, period pain, ect. I'm not saying metaphorical language is useless (which you are), but neither am I saying that said things can't be explained by empirical means. But what is your explanation for these things?
I get all that, but think about what I am actually trying to ask you. You despise the Bible, ramble about literal interpretations of it, and hate a God you lack belief in. Just perhaps you have a few mental obstacles standing in your own way.
I would hardly call the peer reviewed, published work of jack Szostak an "Argument from credulity"
Look there is little that I can do if you will not bother to read the papers of Szostak or at least be open to hearing from those of us who have.
Thankfully because I teach approximately 500 undergraduates per year about the latest in science, the fact that you don't get it does not cost me any sleep.
I want to hear how these ribozyme and RNA experiments actually demonstrate natural events. Because they don't, not even close. RNA, even if it did form on it's own tends to aggregate. And even if you grant that all of the intelligently designed intervention did somehow luckily occur under given conditions, you still have the information problem, the sequencing which is integrated with other specific and functional macromolecules. So influence me, so far you aren't, at all.
The only "information" that was needed by the first cells was to have gene that would replicate faster than the competitors. RNA molecules that folded into functional enzymes that aided replication would be selected for and come to dominate a population. RNA complexes that could bring together amino acids and form functional peptides would have an even greater advantage. From there improvements continue til we reach something approaching the current system.
You are the only one talking about superstitious forces. Is your mind a superstitious force? Let's hope not, let's hope that it's part of this reality as much as what it perceives.
Of course, borth Miller and Sutherland made the classic mistake of not realizing that the Earth already had fish swimming in the sea four days after it was created!
Jeeez, what a couple of boneheads!!
That was October 28, 4004 BC right?
BTW the "thin air" I was grasping at was almost certainly a mildly reducing atmosphere similar to the one used by Sutherland.
Sorry if his data conflicts with your dearly held beliefs.
Wow, nice straw man. Tell me, does it already come with gasoline and a lit match, or did you add those features yourself.
I know you desperately want to believe that life is just a self replicating chemical process that required no intelligence, so go ahead, believe it. But there is a problem for you in the science department. There is no evidence for it. Again, you continue to ignore the information problem, the sequence problem, which no one in origins research denys.
Why is it that bitch and moan perpetually, and yet you never, never explain, descirbe, or demonstrate this "intelligence" that you claim is responsible?
I highly suggest that you research Shapiro's work. And just in case you are tempted to refuse my offer on religious grounds, Shapiro is NOT an ID proponent. Once you actually see what the issues are from the real experts, you will see how laughable cdk007's pseudo-scientific videos are. After looking at origins, I suggest you also look at his work on bacterial genomes. Perhaps, just perhaps, you are the one who needs a bit of education here.
Not exactly. It is the way cdk007 uses the science to draw conclusions. Chemically reverse engineering a self replicating process is fine. But if the process doesn't actually exist, it's conjecture. If said process is asserted to exist, without observation or demonstration, it's pseudo-science. I'm not knocking the chemistry. I'm knocking the imaginary scenario in which he puts "humpty dumpty" back together again.
The metabolic processes do exist. That is why I called it reverse engineering. It's the imaginative process that supposedly allowed for all of these metabolic processes to coalesce INTO a living thing that I am questioning. And I think it's fair, considering it's neither been observed or demonstrated.
Please tell me where an organisms compliment of DNA comes from. I'd like to understand your thought process, because we obviously think differently on this.
Also, consider molecular forensics, which operates on the assumption that high improbable molecular sequences, such as pieces of RNA molecules, came from once living things. In fact, entire scientific research programs are based on this assumption. What they are not based upon, is the assumption that these molecular sequences came from some kind of chemical evolutionary pathway.
This is one biology teacher that is very happy to see such a low view count on a vid. Gives me hope for the next generation of kids growing up without the lies being forced down their impressionable young throats by people like this joke for a man.
@saxmanchiro Why would you be worried about lies being taught to children? Evolutionary theory has been knowingly teaching lies to children for decades. The joke is that Atheists and Neo-Darwinists talk so much about the moral need to teach evolution. When I was in college I used to ask questions about some of the ideas in biology, geology and anthropology that seemed totally unreasonable. The professors generally tried to quiet me and move on. With them there was no pursuit of truth, only dogma
@Rofamily6 Lies are untruths, ie- Noah and family in a giant boat and a global flood, talking snakes, incestuous start to Mankind x2, etc.. Can you support your opinion, " Evolutionary theory has been knowingly teaching lies to children for decades" ?
If you consider the T of E a lie, please teach this teacher something. Be careful and check your sources and their scientific rigor. Warning- using the Discovey Institute or 'AIG' for sources would not be a good start.
@saxmanchiro Yes I can support my statement of fact. I use talk origins and the ability to reason as my primary source for why evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax of the last 150 yrs. You would never be able to see past your indoctrination. I hope for your sake you wake up and stop towing the company line.
@Rofamily6 Please list your sources directly, not just a link to a site that has links. Please provide a single link for me or anyone that might want to read your 'primary source'. I await your answer, as a scientist, I welcome all proper conclusions from proper methodology.
@saxmanchiro are you a scientist or a teacher?If you're a teacher, you've studied science and that doesn't make you a scientist. If you're a scientist then send me a link to a peer reviewed paper of yours. If you're not peer reviewed, then, as far as neo-darwinists are concerned, you're not a scientist.
Are you really challenging the fact that there is information that has been used as teaching curriculum concerning darwinism that even after having been falsified, was taught as fact?
@Rofamily6 Just as I thought. After debating with creatards for over 45 yrs, you do exactly what others have done, deflect away from the theme of the conversation. Forget about who I am and just provide your source, specificaly.
@saxmanchiro the fact that you still use a title like "creatard" after 45 years of anything proves that I was correct in not wasting time explaining to you what you either already know or would not accept even if it were shown to you. I'm not deflecting, I am spending my time wisely.
ps - talk origins is a pro darwinian evolution collection of peer review articles and other evolutionary propaganda - you failed to see the point.
@Rofamily6 I know what 'Talk Origins' has to offer. I asked you for just one link to a source that proves your point. Not much to ask. If your next message here doesn't include that one request, I plan to move on to other, better uses of my time.
@saxmanchiro What I mean to say is that every single solitary piece of evidence Darwinists claims as proof of their theory is the either contrary to proving such or arbitrary inasmuch as it is a mere observation of a living thing, fossil, or combination of genes. it proves nothing and is taught, wrongly, as fact by people like you who really know nothing, but have been indoctrinated into an, albeit, entertaining way to try and explain life - origins, diversity and complexity. Lahitraot.
I checked several sources(World English Dict., Mer-Webster, Amer. Heritage, Med Dict.) and they all said this
" A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science"
I have designed experiments, conducted college level experiments with students, therefore understanding enough to pass that info to others, grade lab notes and design flaws. I can be called to a court of law as an expert witness. Good enough for you?
@saxmanchiro but if you're not peer reviewed you're definition doesn't count. Well at least for Neo-Darwinists who oppose Intelligent Design Scientists (who are scientists based on your sources).
Political - false - devious = Darwinism and the Machine that drives it.
@Rofamily6 Go and check out the Dover trial from Penn. The court concluded that ID was just Creation in sheep's clothing. Just religious bullshit with a new name.
@saxmanchiro Yes. You have won. Dover PA district court decisions are infallible and I must submit. Now if you will excuse me I must go change every comment I've ever made on youtube into pro-darwinian, evolutionist content. The courts have ruled. And even though it is false, politicized soil for control of the human race, I must follow like the rest of the sheep who have been indoctrinated by middle and high school science teachers. Saxmanchiro, you really are a scientist.
"Some truths that are apparent to anyone with a pair of eyes hooked up to a working brain"
That would be compelling except for the fact that your peers seem to think the human eye is a seriously flawed organ - indeed horribly designed if in fact there is a designer. (for the record that's like saying the Sun is a crappy source of heat)
Furthermore, I'm sure the brain is a terrible design too in the eyes of the neo-darwinist, atheist, or theistic sympathizer of the former. Thanks
@Rofamily6 Check out the eyes of raptors, birds of prey. Much better eyes than ours. I guess the designer was on drugs when he passed out the design for ours. How about those elephant ears, ultrasonic sensors in bats, cetaceans. Your designer slipped up again.
@saxmanchiro Have you ever postulated for yourself that it is potentially true that we see more beautifully than any other creature. We're not trying to spot a mouse from a mile up in the atmosphere, we're seeing what animals might not appreciate. And the fact that we appreciate is something in itself.
I find it tragic how short Darwin's finches (the likes of you) sell themselves, enlisting any idea, no matter how base, in attempts to prove their master's little story. Why is it so dear to you?
@Rofamily6 When I go back to class in a few weeks, I think I will start my lectures this way.
"Students, you don't need any textbooks, lab experiments, samples, lectures or notes. We will just use a bible and if you have any questions regarding anything, the answer is 'goddidit'. Also, Mankind came from 2 separate incestuous beginnings, one with talking snakes slithering around and the other from Noah's family. Any questions I cannot answer, feel free to ask your pastor."
@Rofamily6 But remember, I was hired by our county board of ed to teach Biology. No need to learn biblical shit. However, like I said in my last post. No need to teach them anything since everything in bio is based and supported by the T of E( add Germ, Atomic, Plate Tectonic theories too), which you think is nonsense so they really don't need me at all.
Oh ya, if I tried to bring in this ID shit, they would fire me, since it's not in the state mandated curriculum and not science whatsoever.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Aldous Huxley
Sometimes facts get in the way, especially when they contradict what we have been taught by seemingly trustworthy folks. The fact of Natural Selection driving speciation is hard to swallow if it goes against what you have been taught by those folks. Just drink more water when you swallow to aid that 'bolus' of facts going down your stubborn and tight esophagus.
@saxmanchiro And you think Aldous Huxley's ideas about society were positive?
"Natural Selection driving speciation" - you must be referring to micro evolution as nothing more has ever been observed, either in the lab or in nature - even given 25 definitions. NS is a program for adaptation written into the DNA of a species from it's origin. A finch is a finch.
Your pride keeps you from acknowledging the immaculate beauty of Design and the totality of specificity contained therein.
@Rofamily6 And that source again? Still waiting for a link to a single paper that has been published in a respected journal that supports your premise.
Your ignorance is showing again when you bring up words like 'microevolution'. Also this gem, "NS is a program written into the DNA....". No it's not. NS is a process that drives change in genomics through survival of the individual and hence it's ability to reproduce successfully, passing on adaptive advantages to offspring.
@saxmanchiro A designer with an intimate understanding of the ecosystem in that biodiversity is necessary to sustain life organically. I'd add to that an excellent imagination, an unparalleled eye for color, an exquisite palette for texture and a notable sense of humor.
@Rofamily6 Ok, now we have something to go on. Either you are a poe, or you are just so wrapped up in your dogma from clergy, you cannot reason. Your answer is wrong for one big reason, there is not a shread of evidence for your designer. We are back to the beginning again. Evidence please for your designer assertion or I call 'poe'.
@saxmanchiro Poetic, yes. Difficult to discern where I'm coming from? You're more dense than I had first imagined.
Remember where we began. You noted "lies" being fed to youngsters. I noted that your comment is so rudimentarily hypocritical that you either know it or you are truly blind to the shortcomings of your own belief system.
You being prideful and/or naive, demanded proof. I, being wholly convinced of my original comment's validity, need not defend it.
@Rofamily6 Again, you avoid the question I asked at the beginning. Typical Creatard, assertions rectally extracted without any support. I guess you are not a poe. Sad. I was hoping you were joking. I will continue to teach students what the evidence shows us, continue to help them escape the brainwashing from the your fellow herd members.
@saxmanchiro just make sure you check the latest claims in ToE against your text books before you begin indoctrination. May God help them.
I do wish, in closing, to point out that you use the depiction "herd members" in a negative sense. If you're correct aren't we all just herd members. And in faith in God really is totally absurd, as you hold accurate, isn't that type of behavior to be expected of a bunch of animals, big brained or not? If only we had raptor eyes to see.
The Wedge Strategy of the Discovery Institute is in the process of crumbling.
odinata 3 months ago
What a laugh--Meyer the liar leaves out the entire class of Prokariotes, which have no nucleus. He also leaves out viruses which not only often have not only no nucleus, but no organelles and no DNA. Meyer is a total fraud who is a statistitian, not a scientist.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
@TheLizardPeople Most viruses have either RNA or DNA bound in a basic protein membrane.
I guess your whole assertion fails. Sorry
mexicandruglord 4 months ago
@mexicandruglord Meyer's claims include neither prokariotes or viruses--his entire assertion fails, as does yours. Meyer is a fraud and incompetent, a poor scientist whose forte is statistical manipulation of data. perhaps he thinks he can manipulate his all listeners as easily as you were. He can't.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
@TheLizardPeople So what are you disagreeing with? It seems as though you just don't like him and because of your dislike of him, you're hand waving and crying? Maybe you could actually cite what it is, that's upsetting you because your first attempt about viruses bot having DNA was false.
Try again :)
mexicandruglord 4 months ago
@mexicandruglord 1) His description of cells is false, as noted 2) His description of the role of DNA in cells is incorrect.3) His assumptions about intelligent design are false and he also lies. 4) His assumption about DNA being digital are wrong--it isn't digital, or binary for that matter. 5) His assumptions about proteins and their roles are incorrect. 6) His claims about the role of protein shape and function are incorrect--he ignores the role of chemistry altogether, not surprisingly.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
BTW, Lenteviruses have no DNA; polioviruses have no DNA, nor do rotaviruses,Bymoviruses, comoviruses, nepoviruses, nodaviruses, picornaviruses, potyviruses, sobemoviruses and a subset of luteoviruses. Also Carmoviruses, dianthoviruses, flaviviruses, pestiviruses, tombusviruses, single-stranded RNA bacteriophages, hepatitis C virus and a subset of luteoviruses . And Alphaviruses, carlaviruses, furoviruses,and hepatitis E virus. Shall I go on, or is that enough to demonstrate? Meyer is a fraud..
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
@TheLizardPeople 1) You were wrong as I explained to you that some viruses have DNA and RNA. 2) You're wrong. 3) wrong again, you should try and support your argument with substance. 4) This is an analogy - get over it. 5) You're wrong once again. Please produce substance here. 6) And wrong once again. If you're referring to tertiary proteins or quaternary proteins then say so because you're sounding like a drunk.
He hasn't said anything of false projection.
mexicandruglord 4 months ago
@mexicandruglord 1] ALL viruses have RNA;others,listed, have ONLY RNA.2]false 3] false again see Kitzmiller vs. Dover 4]It is a false analogy 5] see 1 and 2--there are cells that have no proteins. 6] He ignores the role of chemistry altogether. Meyer the liar is NOT a Biologist, a Biochemist, a Zoologist, a Crytptozoologist or anything esle but a statistician, and he has it completely wrong. ID has been defined as religion under US federal law, and admitted so by the originator of the concept.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
@TheLizardPeople Get a grip man, you're sounding insane. Not all viruses have DNA, I said "some". Get over that trial it was in 2005 - we are living in 2011 soon to be 2012 and guess what? Science progresses!
Let me guess, you're a YT biologist?
mexicandruglord 4 months ago
@mexicandruglord "your first attempt about viruses not having DNA was false." YOUR WORDS! Meyer the liar is not competent to comment in this field--the Prokariotes he left out have very different internal functions from those which Meyer the liar describes. Then, because he doesn't understand, it is not surprising. FYI, Prokariotes are one of the largest groups of life forms on Earth. And of course, most RNA viruses do not function like Eukariotes either.Same for Archaea, which Myer forgot too.
TheLizardPeople 4 months ago
Or in other words, not Chuck Missler....
odinata 4 months ago
Bat wings are evolved mammal fingers.
Face it.
You know its true.
odinata 4 months ago
Chuck Missler is nuttier than squirrel turds....
odinata 4 months ago
Comment removed
odinata 4 months ago
The recent work of John Sutherland (abiogenesis of RNA) and Jack Szostak (self replicating systems) is leading us out of the darkness and ever closer to solving this question.
It is interseting that Dr. Meyer chooses to ignore their work but instead quotes Huxley from 150 years ago.
C'mon Stephen, keep up with the current literature if you are going to pretend to be knowledgable.
mafarmerga 6 months ago
@mafarmerga
The RNA world concept of RNA somehow eventually leading to the assembly of even the most basic DNA (single-celled life, like bacteria) is more religion then actual science.
So I'm not shocked Dr. Meyer wouldnt mention pseudo-science (like the RNA to DNA myth)
evoTARDSareINSANE 4 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
You know what's crazy? They've recently shown that the genome is NOT limited to the sequence of the DNA molecule, but extends into the RNAs. If this is true, this could lead to the complete and utter collapse of Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. I'm trying to gather data on this, will keep you posted.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
I see your point. But in another sense, it's almost like he doesn't mention it because it's a completely irrelevant idea.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
He who replicates fastest wins.
The appearance of information naturally follows. Go watch youtu(dot)be/rtmbcfb_rdc
and you will see what I am talking about.
And forward the link to Dr. Meyer!
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
First, you need a universal definition of information, not Shannon information (which is informational capacity), but actual information, which conveys meaning, like in DNA. Then you need to show examples of where this information arises in nature via natural law. There are ZERO examples. Life is the only SUPPOSED example. Life IS information. The laws of science and probability point to mind NOT undirected processes as the cause of the genetic expression system. Show otherwise.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
If there was ANY remote evidence of true abiogenesis, it would be all over the peer-reviewed journals and even the net
The idea of DNA forming from accident, or from RNA forming DNA is so laughable that even NON Creationist Biologists like Dr. Francis Crick (the molecular biologist that co-discovered DNA) stated that it was as likely as a Jumbo Jet being fully formed by a hurricane over a junkyard___quote from his book Life Itself
That's why he proposed Directed Panspermia Theory
evoTARDSareINSANE 4 months ago
@evoTARDSareINSANE
Hmmmm, I am guessing from your uninspired, lifted right from the pages of Answers in Genesis, reply that you did not even bother to watch the video by cdk007 that I recommened to you.
Too bad, you might have learned something before spouting off such nonsense.
And BTW it was Fred Hoyle, not Crick, who made the comment about a junkyard and an airplane. Seems like you are not even good at quote mining
How sad :-(
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
Unfortunately, the work you refer to requires an ever increasing amount of intellectual foresight by chemists. At the same time, it increasingly recedes from any plausible naturalistic scenario. If you want to refute Stephen, you need to account for the sequence of the DNA which is not chemically determined, but INFORMATIONALLY determined. Bring your best data and solve the riddle, otherwise you are just another case of special pleading.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"Unfortunately, the work you refer to requires an ever increasing amount of intellectual foresight by chemists."
No, not really it just takes some intellectual ability. From there chemistry takes over for itself.
The boundary between nonliving and living is almost nonexistant. Even Aristotle noted this, he just lacked the knowledge of chemistry to demonstrate it.
Sutherland and Szostak are getting really close to that boundary.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
All one needs to do is actually read about the origin of life to understand that what Sutherland is doing is not scientifically related to the origin question. Making nucleotides (as Urey did decades ago) is not the same as making a viable genetic expression system. The gulf between organic chemistry and a living system is far greater than the gulf between all of the basic kinds of life. Always remember, nucleotide sequencing is NOT chemically determined.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Creationists howl that RNA could not have been the original information/enzymatic molecule because there is no simple way to abiogenically synthesize it. Sutherland has shown that is not true. He can make two of the four nucleotides quite easily under plausible early Earth conditions.
Abiogenesis - 1
Creationists - 0
BTW Stanley Miller never claimed to have made RNA nucleotides
BBTW you could learn something too by watching the video I mention below.
Pax
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
Miller created amino acids (what I meant to say). Sutherland created nucleotides. Both used speculative early earth parameters. Your grasping at thin air. Knowing how to synthesize the chemical constituents is irrelevant. They have already found these constituents in extraterrestrial rock.
The problem, which you can't seem to grasp, is the functional sequencing, and the replication of said functional sequences without a template/catalyst/structural relationship. Think on it.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Alas, you too refuse to watch the cdk007 video on "origin of the genetic code".
So much easier to cling to your dearly held beliefs than to risk learning something new.
We have had rational explanations to these questions for over a decade. You just refuse to read them.
Not much I can do about that.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
I've watched his imaginative video. Until it is either observed, or demonstrated, it's nothing more than CGI enhanced conjecture.
What you willingly fail to acknowledge is that my "beliefs" are based upon observations. I clearly see that the functional sequences of DNA/RNAs is not based upon chemical determinism. You on the other hand refuse to even address it. Why is that? No refuting evidence (because you have offered zero so far)? Or you don't understand it?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
" Until it is either observed, or demonstrated, it's nothing more than CGI enhanced conjecture."
Guess you missed the part where it said it was based on the work of Nobel laureate Jack Szostak.
I agree, invoking the presence of a supernatural explanation is far easier than thinking about natural explanations.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
"Guess you missed the part where it said it was based on the work of Nobel laureate Jack Szostak."
Argument from credulity, which fails to address any of the objections I have raised.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
So its the Nobel laureate you object to .
Not the CGI per se.
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision Just a shill for Stephen Meyer and the Wedge Documetn gang.
Unfortunately for you, the facts don't change because you don't like them.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Like I said before, I'm in this to debate the truth. If I happen to fall on the side of Stephen and gang, it's as irrelevant as you happening to fall on the side of Darwin and gang.
I'm not a flawless intellect. But in my estimation this is more about the interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision YOu keep talking about facts, but lyou never present any.
You continually defer to your opinion--that there must be a "God dunnit" scenario.
I understand why you are reluctant to admit this.
Its a fact free assertion.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Here we go again. You are back in trolling mode. It's pretty funny how you start following me around on youtube, trying to make fun of me when it's crystal clear that the objections I have raised are beyond your ability to comprehend, let alone refute. But it's okay, I'm well aware of your limited intellect and your anti-religious frustrations.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Here we go again.
It was a straight forward question, and you turned it around without answering it.
If your religious opinions have the ability to answer science questions, lets hear it.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
I asked you for the answer. So what's the answer? Educate me.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
If you've heard of this very specialized science--Biology--then you have access to the answer that I defer to.
I asked you FIRST.
Why play coy.
You have my answer--I wouldn't have asked you FIRST if I wasn't interested in yours...
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"Where doe an organisms compliment of DNA come from?"
if you'd like me to answer, either ask the question with more articulation, or perhaps you could give me the answer, because I don't know the answer. I'm not exactly sure what you are even trying to ask.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
"If I open this jar of peanut butter, I should....."
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Circus--wake up.
You are trying to prove to the world that your personal religious opinions are the only possible proper view.
You are committed to heading one way down this road.
Turn around.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Turn around? What's in the other direction?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Reality.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
And from your perspective, what is that reality supposed to look like?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
There are no talking snakes that make magic fruit sound even so much more appealing that a lady made from a rib eats it and makes mortality, sickness, and period pain with that naked move......
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
But there do exist things such as mortality, sickness, period pain, ect. I'm not saying metaphorical language is useless (which you are), but neither am I saying that said things can't be explained by empirical means. But what is your explanation for these things?
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Period pain does not come from a rib lady who pissed off a god that wasn't smart enough to get even the first two people right.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
I get all that, but think about what I am actually trying to ask you. You despise the Bible, ramble about literal interpretations of it, and hate a God you lack belief in. Just perhaps you have a few mental obstacles standing in your own way.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Sorry bud. That ain't convincing evidence that an invisible sky creature mad a woman out of a rib--and made foxes that aren't related to wolves.
Blood doesn't cure crimes.....
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
Why do you feel the need to make others believe that organisms are static, when they clearly are not?
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
When are you going to jettison Shapiro?
After all, he's not asserting that organisms don't evolve--that they don't share common ancestry.
At some point you are going to have to find a science that disproves his science which supposedly disproves another science...
This is an interesting relay race you are running--but at some point your baton is going to drop.
odinata 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"the objections I have raised are beyond your ability to comprehend,"
There are a few problems with that hypothesis. For one, I've personally debunked every piece of bunk you've introduced.
But even if I weren't able hadn't, the fact that there is no science backing you is highly suspicious...
If you 'd like me to do that for your Demonic UFO's and the "value of terrorism destroying the Twin Towers", I'd be happy to oblige.
Tinfoil hat removal is my specialty.....
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
I would hardly call the peer reviewed, published work of jack Szostak an "Argument from credulity"
Look there is little that I can do if you will not bother to read the papers of Szostak or at least be open to hearing from those of us who have.
Thankfully because I teach approximately 500 undergraduates per year about the latest in science, the fact that you don't get it does not cost me any sleep.
How many new people per year do you influence?
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
I want to hear how these ribozyme and RNA experiments actually demonstrate natural events. Because they don't, not even close. RNA, even if it did form on it's own tends to aggregate. And even if you grant that all of the intelligently designed intervention did somehow luckily occur under given conditions, you still have the information problem, the sequencing which is integrated with other specific and functional macromolecules. So influence me, so far you aren't, at all.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
The only "information" that was needed by the first cells was to have gene that would replicate faster than the competitors. RNA molecules that folded into functional enzymes that aided replication would be selected for and come to dominate a population. RNA complexes that could bring together amino acids and form functional peptides would have an even greater advantage. From there improvements continue til we reach something approaching the current system.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
"I want to hear how these ribozyme and RNA experiments actually demonstrate natural events. Because they don't, not even close."
Why don't you describe for us the supernatural events you claim, and that have never been witnessed.
odinata 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
While on Youtube search for i9u50wKDb_4 and I14KTshLUkg
cdk007 does a nice job with this. Much better than I could do with only 400 characters.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
"hat you willingly fail to acknowledge is that my "beliefs" are based upon observations."
Wrong.
Your beliefs are based on your religious opinions.
This is why SCIENCE disagrees with your assertions that some superstitious force determines DNA sequences...
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
You are the only one talking about superstitious forces. Is your mind a superstitious force? Let's hope not, let's hope that it's part of this reality as much as what it perceives.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Of course, borth Miller and Sutherland made the classic mistake of not realizing that the Earth already had fish swimming in the sea four days after it was created!
Jeeez, what a couple of boneheads!!
That was October 28, 4004 BC right?
BTW the "thin air" I was grasping at was almost certainly a mildly reducing atmosphere similar to the one used by Sutherland.
Sorry if his data conflicts with your dearly held beliefs.
mafarmerga 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
Wow, nice straw man. Tell me, does it already come with gasoline and a lit match, or did you add those features yourself.
I know you desperately want to believe that life is just a self replicating chemical process that required no intelligence, so go ahead, believe it. But there is a problem for you in the science department. There is no evidence for it. Again, you continue to ignore the information problem, the sequence problem, which no one in origins research denys.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
Why is it that bitch and moan perpetually, and yet you never, never explain, descirbe, or demonstrate this "intelligence" that you claim is responsible?
odinata 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
I highly suggest that you research Shapiro's work. And just in case you are tempted to refuse my offer on religious grounds, Shapiro is NOT an ID proponent. Once you actually see what the issues are from the real experts, you will see how laughable cdk007's pseudo-scientific videos are. After looking at origins, I suggest you also look at his work on bacterial genomes. Perhaps, just perhaps, you are the one who needs a bit of education here.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
You act as though cdk007 invented the science.
He didn't.
You fare definitely lacking in the education department, because you refuse to accept anything that doesn't support your anti-science viewpoint.
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
Not exactly. It is the way cdk007 uses the science to draw conclusions. Chemically reverse engineering a self replicating process is fine. But if the process doesn't actually exist, it's conjecture. If said process is asserted to exist, without observation or demonstration, it's pseudo-science. I'm not knocking the chemistry. I'm knocking the imaginary scenario in which he puts "humpty dumpty" back together again.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
@circusOFprecision
What part of the process doesn't exist.
Where doe an organisms compliment of DNA come from?
odinata 4 months ago
@odinata
The metabolic processes do exist. That is why I called it reverse engineering. It's the imaginative process that supposedly allowed for all of these metabolic processes to coalesce INTO a living thing that I am questioning. And I think it's fair, considering it's neither been observed or demonstrated.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
Please tell me where an organisms compliment of DNA comes from. I'd like to understand your thought process, because we obviously think differently on this.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@circusOFprecision
I just asked you this very question.
Why don't you at least try to answer it before you mirror it right back to me?
odinata 4 months ago
@mafarmerga
Also, consider molecular forensics, which operates on the assumption that high improbable molecular sequences, such as pieces of RNA molecules, came from once living things. In fact, entire scientific research programs are based on this assumption. What they are not based upon, is the assumption that these molecular sequences came from some kind of chemical evolutionary pathway.
circusOFprecision 4 months ago
Who is he talking to? This looks highly staged.
DickJohnson3434 7 months ago
@DickJohnson3434 well tht doesnt mean its not true facts
WIENERSCHNITZEL252 6 months ago
@WIENERSCHNITZEL252
Not by itself. It's just another example of how fundamentally dishonest the whole ID movement is.
DickJohnson3434 6 months ago
Thank you for this trailer upload.
randomuseronthenet 7 months ago
This is one biology teacher that is very happy to see such a low view count on a vid. Gives me hope for the next generation of kids growing up without the lies being forced down their impressionable young throats by people like this joke for a man.
saxmanchiro 8 months ago
@saxmanchiro Why would you be worried about lies being taught to children? Evolutionary theory has been knowingly teaching lies to children for decades. The joke is that Atheists and Neo-Darwinists talk so much about the moral need to teach evolution. When I was in college I used to ask questions about some of the ideas in biology, geology and anthropology that seemed totally unreasonable. The professors generally tried to quiet me and move on. With them there was no pursuit of truth, only dogma
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Lies are untruths, ie- Noah and family in a giant boat and a global flood, talking snakes, incestuous start to Mankind x2, etc.. Can you support your opinion, " Evolutionary theory has been knowingly teaching lies to children for decades" ?
If you consider the T of E a lie, please teach this teacher something. Be careful and check your sources and their scientific rigor. Warning- using the Discovey Institute or 'AIG' for sources would not be a good start.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro Yes I can support my statement of fact. I use talk origins and the ability to reason as my primary source for why evolutionary theory is the greatest hoax of the last 150 yrs. You would never be able to see past your indoctrination. I hope for your sake you wake up and stop towing the company line.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Please list your sources directly, not just a link to a site that has links. Please provide a single link for me or anyone that might want to read your 'primary source'. I await your answer, as a scientist, I welcome all proper conclusions from proper methodology.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro are you a scientist or a teacher?If you're a teacher, you've studied science and that doesn't make you a scientist. If you're a scientist then send me a link to a peer reviewed paper of yours. If you're not peer reviewed, then, as far as neo-darwinists are concerned, you're not a scientist.
Are you really challenging the fact that there is information that has been used as teaching curriculum concerning darwinism that even after having been falsified, was taught as fact?
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Just as I thought. After debating with creatards for over 45 yrs, you do exactly what others have done, deflect away from the theme of the conversation. Forget about who I am and just provide your source, specificaly.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro the fact that you still use a title like "creatard" after 45 years of anything proves that I was correct in not wasting time explaining to you what you either already know or would not accept even if it were shown to you. I'm not deflecting, I am spending my time wisely.
ps - talk origins is a pro darwinian evolution collection of peer review articles and other evolutionary propaganda - you failed to see the point.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 I know what 'Talk Origins' has to offer. I asked you for just one link to a source that proves your point. Not much to ask. If your next message here doesn't include that one request, I plan to move on to other, better uses of my time.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro What I mean to say is that every single solitary piece of evidence Darwinists claims as proof of their theory is the either contrary to proving such or arbitrary inasmuch as it is a mere observation of a living thing, fossil, or combination of genes. it proves nothing and is taught, wrongly, as fact by people like you who really know nothing, but have been indoctrinated into an, albeit, entertaining way to try and explain life - origins, diversity and complexity. Lahitraot.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 'Scientist' defined;
I checked several sources(World English Dict., Mer-Webster, Amer. Heritage, Med Dict.) and they all said this
" A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science"
I have designed experiments, conducted college level experiments with students, therefore understanding enough to pass that info to others, grade lab notes and design flaws. I can be called to a court of law as an expert witness. Good enough for you?
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro but if you're not peer reviewed you're definition doesn't count. Well at least for Neo-Darwinists who oppose Intelligent Design Scientists (who are scientists based on your sources).
Political - false - devious = Darwinism and the Machine that drives it.
Now go do something better with your time.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 I just found me a new oxymoron. Thanks for this.
'Intelligent Design Scientist'
-ID is not science, hence no scientist involved here. Move along.
I am doing great things with my time. I am conversing with a moronic person who cannot stand behind what he/she says in public.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro case in point.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Go and check out the Dover trial from Penn. The court concluded that ID was just Creation in sheep's clothing. Just religious bullshit with a new name.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro speechless
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 So I see you have checked out the minutes of the court then? Kitzmiller vs Dover Board of Ed?
It would leave you speechless.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro Yes. You have won. Dover PA district court decisions are infallible and I must submit. Now if you will excuse me I must go change every comment I've ever made on youtube into pro-darwinian, evolutionist content. The courts have ruled. And even though it is false, politicized soil for control of the human race, I must follow like the rest of the sheep who have been indoctrinated by middle and high school science teachers. Saxmanchiro, you really are a scientist.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Some truths that are apparent to anyone with a pair of eyes hooked up to a working brain;
-We can explain past, present and future biodiversity with the T of E
- I am a scientist, teacher, doctor.
- ID is religion, not science.
- courts are ruled by evidence, not hearsay or superstition
- the judge who sat for the Dover trial was a Christian conservative and had to rule by the evidence presented
-science is the best system we have for finding truth that is trustworthy to all, even you
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro
"Some truths that are apparent to anyone with a pair of eyes hooked up to a working brain"
That would be compelling except for the fact that your peers seem to think the human eye is a seriously flawed organ - indeed horribly designed if in fact there is a designer. (for the record that's like saying the Sun is a crappy source of heat)
Furthermore, I'm sure the brain is a terrible design too in the eyes of the neo-darwinist, atheist, or theistic sympathizer of the former. Thanks
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Check out the eyes of raptors, birds of prey. Much better eyes than ours. I guess the designer was on drugs when he passed out the design for ours. How about those elephant ears, ultrasonic sensors in bats, cetaceans. Your designer slipped up again.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro Have you ever postulated for yourself that it is potentially true that we see more beautifully than any other creature. We're not trying to spot a mouse from a mile up in the atmosphere, we're seeing what animals might not appreciate. And the fact that we appreciate is something in itself.
I find it tragic how short Darwin's finches (the likes of you) sell themselves, enlisting any idea, no matter how base, in attempts to prove their master's little story. Why is it so dear to you?
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro What would you use your ultrasonic sensors for?
I guess our future (billions of years from now) generations will find out.
Elephant ears are already a human virtue although I am not sure that is what you were talking about.
But seriously, what I would do to trade my teeth for tusks.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 When I go back to class in a few weeks, I think I will start my lectures this way.
"Students, you don't need any textbooks, lab experiments, samples, lectures or notes. We will just use a bible and if you have any questions regarding anything, the answer is 'goddidit'. Also, Mankind came from 2 separate incestuous beginnings, one with talking snakes slithering around and the other from Noah's family. Any questions I cannot answer, feel free to ask your pastor."
Is that better?
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro I like your candor. However, and needless to say, you'd make a terrible Bible teacher.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 But remember, I was hired by our county board of ed to teach Biology. No need to learn biblical shit. However, like I said in my last post. No need to teach them anything since everything in bio is based and supported by the T of E( add Germ, Atomic, Plate Tectonic theories too), which you think is nonsense so they really don't need me at all.
Oh ya, if I tried to bring in this ID shit, they would fire me, since it's not in the state mandated curriculum and not science whatsoever.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro The fact is that you don't understand that Bible and that is what would make you a terrible teacher of it.
I, on the other hand, would make an excellent Biology teacher, because regurgitation is quite simple.
But don't tell anyone...I would also advocate questioning, reasoning, and logic.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 I will leave you with this gem.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Aldous Huxley
Sometimes facts get in the way, especially when they contradict what we have been taught by seemingly trustworthy folks. The fact of Natural Selection driving speciation is hard to swallow if it goes against what you have been taught by those folks. Just drink more water when you swallow to aid that 'bolus' of facts going down your stubborn and tight esophagus.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro And you think Aldous Huxley's ideas about society were positive?
"Natural Selection driving speciation" - you must be referring to micro evolution as nothing more has ever been observed, either in the lab or in nature - even given 25 definitions. NS is a program for adaptation written into the DNA of a species from it's origin. A finch is a finch.
Your pride keeps you from acknowledging the immaculate beauty of Design and the totality of specificity contained therein.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 And that source again? Still waiting for a link to a single paper that has been published in a respected journal that supports your premise.
Your ignorance is showing again when you bring up words like 'microevolution'. Also this gem, "NS is a program written into the DNA....". No it's not. NS is a process that drives change in genomics through survival of the individual and hence it's ability to reproduce successfully, passing on adaptive advantages to offspring.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Here is a question for you but like the other questions I have asked, I don't plan on hearing any answers.
How do you explain biodiversity of life on our planet?
While you contemplate that one, have a go at the earlier one, a single source of evidence that supports your rectal assertion from the beginning.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro A designer with an intimate understanding of the ecosystem in that biodiversity is necessary to sustain life organically. I'd add to that an excellent imagination, an unparalleled eye for color, an exquisite palette for texture and a notable sense of humor.
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Ok, now we have something to go on. Either you are a poe, or you are just so wrapped up in your dogma from clergy, you cannot reason. Your answer is wrong for one big reason, there is not a shread of evidence for your designer. We are back to the beginning again. Evidence please for your designer assertion or I call 'poe'.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro Poetic, yes. Difficult to discern where I'm coming from? You're more dense than I had first imagined.
Remember where we began. You noted "lies" being fed to youngsters. I noted that your comment is so rudimentarily hypocritical that you either know it or you are truly blind to the shortcomings of your own belief system.
You being prideful and/or naive, demanded proof. I, being wholly convinced of my original comment's validity, need not defend it.
And this video has 148 views...
Rofamily6 7 months ago
@Rofamily6 Again, you avoid the question I asked at the beginning. Typical Creatard, assertions rectally extracted without any support. I guess you are not a poe. Sad. I was hoping you were joking. I will continue to teach students what the evidence shows us, continue to help them escape the brainwashing from the your fellow herd members.
saxmanchiro 7 months ago
@saxmanchiro just make sure you check the latest claims in ToE against your text books before you begin indoctrination. May God help them.
I do wish, in closing, to point out that you use the depiction "herd members" in a negative sense. If you're correct aren't we all just herd members. And in faith in God really is totally absurd, as you hold accurate, isn't that type of behavior to be expected of a bunch of animals, big brained or not? If only we had raptor eyes to see.
Ciao
Rofamily6 7 months ago
Had Kent Hovind god out of Jail yet, or is C, Meyer his unknown twin broader?
JerezJulio 8 months ago