Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
Furthemore, meyer's methodology should be passible to laghter. We dont go looking for arbitrary causes. Just because geneticists are capable of gene manipulation, we dont invoke humans to explain the phylogentic evolution of species. Similarly, All the ''inteligence'' we know off, is encoded in a functional neuronal network, called ''brain'', and it is not clear wether intelligence can exist independently of one. Unless they provide a justification for this, I think it is pretty safe to say...
So what if there is indeed a designer behind it all? All evidence still point towards something that is NOT described by any religions, especially Christianity. I laugh every time people use ideas like ID to support Christianity. No it doesn't, ok?
Chemicals, amino acids, and proteins aren't 'digital information.' They can be represented by information to be interpreted and that's how we understand biological science. This is just a semantics game and no better than claiming spontaneous generation to be a legitimate theory. This is not a scientific concept.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
A hundred years from now,scientific methodology will uncover something about the Universe that we can't possibly imagine now.Scientists working in obscurity will painstakingly discover some new fact about the world.And Christians a hundred years hence will regard this discovery as evidence for god.It's all getting very boring.
"So if I have a higher IQ then you would that make me smarter? Its all dependent on the test giver. I could design a test that all evolutionists would fail."
Go to google, type "creation science quiz" and click the first link. Tell me if you pass it.
As far as the study goes, the IQ tests used were not tests of knowledge but rather of problem solving, critical thinking, pattern recognition, ect.
please explain shared ERV insertions between distinct but related species, accurate predictions made by molecular phylogenetics, biogeography (species found in strata age and locations at predicted evolutionary origins), fusion of 2 ape chromosomes into 1 human chromosome, human embryonic stages that show vestigial gene expression of amphibians, or why all living species can be traced back to a predecessor (there are no genetically novel organisms)?
^ the existence of these facts are not open to debate, they are observations and empirical data, of which evolution theory is applied to to best explain why those facts occur.
If there was an intelligent designer, I don't see why there would be so many indicators of slow and chaotic creation, unless the supernatural entity designer is lazy and so made humans by jerryrigging two ape chromosomes together at the telomeres and copying/deletion errors between genes
"The liberal evolutionist is drawn to academia because they worship the intellect"
Smart people are drawn to knowledge?
That coincides perfectly with a recent study on 137 countries which found people with lower IQs are more likely to believe in God/supernatural entities.
Obviously. The people who pass the most oppressive laws are christians/republicans. These same people are the ones who allow corporations to destroy the environment by blasting apart mountains and cutting down forests or haphazardly drilling oil under the ocean, all because their fucking religion tells them they have a God given right to exploit, destroy, dominate, and subdue Earth and animals however they please.
"if you didn't spend all your time trying to prove creation. But trying to prove evolution is a waste of time"
I don't try to prove either. I encourage creationists to explain the observed/empirical facts evolution theory is based on using their own creation hypothesis. I also want them to show me experimental data in chemistry that says molecular structures necessary for life (reproduction and a way of harvesting energy) cannot occur in nature.
"Cause your evolution theory can't hold under rationale scrutiny"
Are you referring to evolution theory, or "evolution theory" that people think includes abiogenesis?
The true theory of evolution; the transformation of existing life by accumulative changes to DNA/RNA, is well founded and thoroughly documented. It holds up quite well to attempts to falsify it. Strongest argument for creation: our 99.9% incomplete fossil record data can't show every transition
"naturalism can not account for the origin of life"
Explain. Show me the chemistry that says self-replicating nucleic acid cannot enter a lipid bubble and extract chemical energy from the environment. All the constituents of life have been shown to form naturally, so tell us why a small percentage of the trillions upon trillions of randomly forming RNA/TNA strands on primordial earth could not arrange in unique structures (genes/shapes) capable of "living"?
So when RNA/TNA/GNA (or any nucleic acid polymere) forms naturally in randomly-sequenced segments, and a segment that was about 10-150 nucleotides long folded over on itself into shapes (ribozymes) that inherit characteristics similar to protein enzymes which could facilitate the replication of another RNA strand (genome)that consists of a sequence allowing it to make a protein/s (gene), you consider none of this "information"?
Until a creationist can show me the chemistry that says naturally occurring nucleic acid strands cannot fold into shapes analogous to enzymes and facilitate replication and metabolism, I see no reason to think their supernatural creation hypothesis has any merit.
All I get from these people is vague terminology and weak analogies like "information = requires creator. A watch can't make itself, therefore living molecular systems cannot form by chemical affinity!"
An explanation as to what many have been the first life, isn't to explain how DNA came to be. As the first question about it should be is, "What is the simplest way we can have heredity information?".
It's slightly telling that Stephen doesn't make any effort to cut down the layers of complexity to the bare essentials for life. Since RNA is capable of doing much of the function of heredity information, being capable of self reproduction and function.
you don't know where the dna code comes from so you attribute it to an invisible god who couldn't even dictate a plausible history of the universe. an insecure, racist, murderous, vain, hypocrite, was the author of the dna code??? you sir are an idiot
Creation hypothesis fails to properly explain facts such as shared ERV insertions between distinct but related species, 100% accurate predictions made by molecular phylogenetics, biogeography (where species are found in strata and locations at predicted evolutionary origins), fusion of 2 ape chromosomes into 1 human chromosome, human embryonic stages that show vestigial development as amphibians, or why ALL living species today can be traced back to an ancestor w/ NO completely novel organisms
DNA is not information, it is not digital either until some naive human inputs the molecular structure into a computer. DNA is nothing but a molecule that uses highly affinitive, highly specific binding properties to provide functions by proxy of proteins it creates complimentary to its sequence.
DNA is no more "divine" than RNA, or TNA, yet for some reason I don't see these bronze-age-thinkers worshiping these precursory genetic molecules? Why is that?
DNA dictates the form of a organism. We know that the forms of organisms are not produced randomly because dogs will reproduce more dogs, having the same specific dog form. All other organisms will do the same. Thus, required is something that accounts for the reproduction of specific forms that are different from other lifeforms but the same as their progenitors. That "something" can only be information. When a child possesses his
You could look at it that way in literature. But thats not what nucleic acid does. Nucleic acid is nothing more than a polymere consisting of only a few molecular variants that repeat many times. The position of the molecules and what other molecules they're next to dictates what amino acids will be brought together close enough to create peptide bonds
"Information" is just the idiots' way of understanding chemistry
{The position of the molecules and what other molecules they're next to dictates what amino acids will be brought together}
Thats precisely as indicated by Dr. Meyer. He said that the information is "encoded". However, he was delivering a media message, not a university lecture. Therefor, he understands that its not the time to go into the details of the Biology. Its standard practice that for media presentations, a summarized explanation is stated
"Therefor, he understands that its not the time to go into the details of the Biology."
LOL. It never seems to be the time for creationists to go into scientific detail when discussing scientific matters. And that's mostly because they can't. Just as the bible writers left some matters vague because they predicted they'd be proven wrong in the future, creationists must also leave explanations vague for the same reason.
Chemicals are not code. The arrangement of cellulose fibers into paper is not code. The pressure differentials of weather is not code. The radio-thermal process within earth is not a code. Nuclear fusion of stars is not code. Chemistry is not a code. You interpret it as code because you either don't know any other way, or you don't want to think of it realistically in order to sustain your notions of creation.
father's eyes, there must exist something that directs the process which forms those eyes to their particular specifications. If the father's eyes are large, with a droopy shape & green in color, then only the information of those specific traits can direct the reproduction of those eyes within the child
Its as Dr. Meyer stated, all Biologists that study origins, understand that "information" is the relevant matter & science has already concluded that information = intelligence
Writing information about life takes intelligence. But life does not operate on information.
If you were to describe an orange, such as saying it's round, rough textured, orange in color, weighs about a pound, then that is information. But the orange itself doesn't use any of that information. The orange grows only due to chemistry.
{But the orange itself doesn't use any of that information. The orange grows due to chemistry}
This assumes that every orange produced by a tree, is formed as a sphere with a rough texture & colored orange because random chance simply happens to cause that every time. I've already explained that when reproduction occurs, organisms produce their own kind because the information of their form & particular physical traits is what directs the process
"when reproduction occurs, organisms produce their own kind because the information of their form & particular physical traits is what directs the process"
Organisms produce their own kind (most of the time) because their molecular structure is replicated and it preforms nearly the same bonding characteristics. Offspring are not really "new" organisms, but rather extensions of the previous one. Every living thing is just a continuation of a preceding organism.
Everything of the natural world is digital. When one swims underwater from one end of a pool to the other end, it may seem as though water is analog but we know its composed of 2 Hydrogen digits & 1 Oxygen digit. Molecules are composed of atom digits & atoms are composed of particle digits. Now you know what "digital" means. Its not exclusive to electronics with blinking lights & beeping sounds
"Everything of the natural world is digital. When one swims underwater from one end of a pool to the other end, it may seem as though water is analog but we know its composed of digits"
You can stick two items together and label them with the number "2" but that number has absolutely nothing to do with those items' physical existence. It's just the way you choose to see them. Water is not water because of a number, it's water because of its structure
{Water is not water because of a number, it's water because of its structure}
Precisely...& its molecular structure consists of 3 molecule digits...2 Hydrogen digits & 1 Oxygen digit
BTW, don't allow the tyrannically greedy, corporate oligarchy to fool you anymore. Internal combustion engines need simply fuel that explodes. Water is comprised of only things that explode...Hydrogen & Oxygen
Crude = power & exploitation then they say man's Carbons = Global Warming
"Water is comprised of only things that explode...Hydrogen & Oxygen"
Please, tell us how to effectively split it from a non-combustible state at lower costs than conventional petroleum fuel. Don't accuse if you can't address.
Are you one of those people who think the Earth is infallible to chemical influences and that God still controls the weather? Or do you simply deny co2's ability to reflect infrared back towards the surface?
empty, analog space, is in fact, digital. Biological organisms, including humans & our DNA, are also "digital"
{bronze-age-thinkers}
At least we actually think. However, the reason why degree of antiquity is the evolutionist's criteria for determining one's degree of acumen & the validity or invalidity of a view, is because evolutionists completely lack acumen & validity, due to subscribing to the stone age, Sumerian, religious tale known as "theory of evolution"
"Biological organisms, including humans & our DNA, are also "digital"
No. If we scan nucleic acid and view its sequence on a machine, then that is digital. But DNA itself is not digital, it's physical, and it exists independently of digits or labels
"At least we actually think"
Religion doesn't leave much room to think. In fact, there were periods where if someone thought TOO much they'd be burned to death.
You seem to perceive that digital means virtual. I've already explained that digital is not exclusive to electronics. The word digital simply came to be commonly associated with the electronic age because the previous use of analog meters & dials were exchanged for LCD digital displays
"Digital" is associated with the computer age because software code is written with digits. Thus, Sims are digital beings existing within a virtual environment. The ironic thing is that man has designed & created such things from his intelligence, i.e. consciousness. While Quantum Physics has revealed that the Materialist view is invalid & we humans are digital beings existing within a materially virtual environment. We're Sims being monitored on the universally cosmic plasma
"However, the reason why degree of antiquity is the evolutionist's criteria for determining one's degree of acumen & the validity"
Nope. It's just one of many easy ways to discredit ancient mythology. But scientists don't need to bring up its date. All they have to do is point out how the bible writers falsely described key aspects of reality, or point out some of the many clear indications that the bible is anthropomorphic imagination rather than God's word
{Nope. It's just one of many easy ways to discredit ancient mythology}
ha ha, if you simply knew half as much as you talk & if you could think critically, you might have already discovered that Greek Mythology, which is commonly perceived as the mother of all fiction, is in fact, "encoded information" of real occurrences. Trust me, I spent an entire semester of 7th grade English learning Greek Mythology
That means I was already then, capable of critical thinking, while the correct execution of such cognitive functions continue to elude you. Also, The Lord Of The Rings, i.e. The Hobbit has long been recognized to be "encoded information", i.e. metaphorical of things true to life
Evolutionary theory & Paganism/Satanism share a common origins within Sumerian culture. Thats why atheist evolutionists are the White Wizard's useful, idiot, "Orc" pawns, used within the war waged upon Americans, i.e. Christians
Remember Gothmog, the Orc's Field General? He was an evolutionarily heavily mutated, reproductive defect
{some of the many clear indications that the bible is anthropomorphic imagination rather than God's word}
But you, those scientists & anyone else that would agree with your above statement, all put forth deficient, weak arguments
Its all there, available for viewing. The case has been presented...if you think you have a winner, then take up your arguments or those of anyone else & pit them against those of Simon Greenleaf...if you enjoy looking a fool
@TheRacer909 So how many fossils did you study? Or did you watch creationists videos on Piltdown Man? Or stupid shit like, ''Where is the information come from''
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
@TheRacer909 ~Thank you for proving my point.BTW, if creationism is correct, how is it that dinsaur and human fossils are never found together? Or that the Burgess Shales contain no fossils with backbones--no reptiles, no amphibians, no mammals, no fish, no dinosaurs, no hominids, no birds, just invertebrates...impossible according to creationism. Oops!
@chris7777777777777 Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event caused the extinction of most dinosaur species, except for some birds. Just stating the facts.
@odinata What a terrible conclusion...... I never said that - even more because I have no religious opinions. That "conclusion" it's based in a required idea created in your mind only. Created by the need of giving an explanation for the difference of what you belief.
Finally, as all atheists/evolutionists you had to attack me personally. It always happen when you have nothing better to say. So predictable.
@Fantasticlist : You have to excuse him. With all the respect, its hard to maintain manners in front of someone who uses embarassingly bad arguments from a uncontroversily dishonest philosopher. So, can you tell me 3 or 4 serious information theorists who accepts the ''specified complexity'' measure of information and are not of the design institute?
@MrAquinoflavio "uncontroversily dishonest philosopher" ? Information theorists? Specified complexity? Design Institute? Whatttttt? Explain yourself, your message was a total mess.
@Fantasticlist : Thats easy. He's dishonest. Because he promotes a concept wich doesn't even have a coherent definition(specified complexity) as if it is accepted by majority of information theorists. And he belongs to the design institute, wich is a institute for promoting design. The point is, he makes bad arguments, rejected by majority of evolutionary biologists and information theorists.
@Fantasticlist : ''Its coherent''... Why dont you read a paper written by REAL information theorists like jeffrey shallit and wesley elsberry? Just google it, its called Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and
Dembski's Complex Specified Information".
They DESTROY that phony called dembsky, and consequently, the phony called meyer. Unlike both meyer and dembsky, they are both authorities on this subject, because they are on their own field.
@MrAquinoflavio Do you want me to talk about an entire paper in a small comment like this? At the same time, that is old and it has already an answer in the same institute of this video. If you're interested, discovery(dot)org/a/14911
What would make them those who have the truth? They wrote that at almost 10 years and the argument is still valid. It is not only for evoheads that need to debunk it so they can still have their faith in the only thing they believe.
@Fantasticlist : Thats what you get by putting someone outside of their fields against someone who knows what he is talking about. Briefly, some mistakes:
- Casey luskin mistankenly attributes design a status of a positive explanation.
Unless you explain how an intelligence can exist apart from a neural system and give a positive description of the designer, it will be limited to useless criticism of darwinism.
@MrAquinoflavio Do you know what a positive explanation means? It means you already have a positive cause for something. In the case of life, an intelligent designer.
You need to tell me what is your "positive description of the designer." Because you seem to use this to deny the positive explanation of the designer. And facing a positive evidence for a designer, you may not want to accept it as supernatural and so denying that positive evidence.
@Fantasticlist :-In response to the false positives, casey has argued that shallit ignore natural causes and are precipitated in applying SC. I almost fell from my chair listening to this. I mean, does his ignorance upon the literature of mutation and natural selction reach this point? (See talk origins cb102). Can't they be a natural explanation in the context of biology? As you can see by the links, the evidence for microevolution and consequently, macroevolution is almost as
@Fantasticlist : As well attested as the other causes. It obviously has problems as he mentions it, but so have relativity. We dont have to recur to misticism to deal with these problems. Another god of the gaps argument.
- Thirdly, he ignores the most important criticism section, the one that talks about the incoherence of specification. If that is pertinent, then sc fails. (Check on the paper) And there was nothing on that. Does the number 143 have sc? Why or why not?
@MrAquinoflavio Maybe because incoherence of specification makes no sense at all. There are no cases of incoherence of specification when you assume specification, ie, by assuming a specific complex structure which is real and works, it has no incoherence. How could it be incoherent?
@TheRacer909 Hilarious!! CreationistWon??? You won't find any facts there, but you might actually look at Pasteur's work itself, which is readily available online. He was studying the spoilage of food and discovered that when microorganism growth was prevented, spoilage was hugely reduced. Where do you think pasteurization came from? BTW is your dictionary Conservapedia by any chance? Or maybe a "definition" provided by Kent Hovind?
@TheRacer909 Poor fellow: biogenesis refers to organisms that spoil food, and in that regard, mircroorganisms only arise from previous contamination. Pasteur was not referring to life ab initio in any way. Back to school.
How is it that by supposedly answering the question concerning a 'creator' or 'first cause' we should then feel that we have resolved the question of creation. One is wont to then ask next, 'Who created the creator'? We are that we are...and that's about as good as it's ever gonna get.
I always love this argument. Design requires intelligence to produce it, therefore, there must be an intelligence, but he doesn't require intelligence to be produced, he just always was, but for you to suggest skipping this whole line of "reasoning" and just consider that the product "always was", it's obviously incorrect. The universe is "too complicated", it needs a designer that is more complicated than it, but that designer doesn't. ....k. Moving on.
Those stats sound a little high to me, but ok, there is definitely some correlation. Yes, we have a strongly materialistic culture in the science community, and a general belief that what we *do* is materialism, but it isnt! What we *do* is careful analysis of predictive hypotheses, and ID fits comfortably in with that. ID gets up peoples noses because it challenges an a priori ('faith'-like) position called materialism. Its a little bit like sectarianism.
Intelligent design is only wishful thinking. The really terrible thing is that muslim clerics have started to promote these kinds of claims, and it is seeping its way into schools all across the middle east.
@clearlythink ??? Nothing Meyer the liar has ever done can be considered brilliant, except to refute his own fool nonsense even as he is promulgating it.
@clearlythink How is it a refutation? His book has been completely slaughtered by several biologists, chemists, and philosophers alike. Read Stephen Fletcher's refutation of Meyers. Like all the other intelligent design "thinkers" he never provides any compelling and true arguments.
This is bull, information does not have to be created by intelligence. Matter itself is most likely information at its deepest level, even space and time may be discreet units of information. Chemistry is information, and that does definitely not need intelligence to be created, it is shaped if the conditions are met. This guy should have studied theology instead of biology.
@amanda2324 Any structure has information, and this information changes over time. New information is created in this way without any intelligence. Change over time is new information in and of itself.
Now where is your proof that matter has to be created by intelligence? And if so, who created that intelligence. The argument from intelligence design doesn't solve any of the problems.
We can't know how likely the conditions are since we haven't even ventured out of our own solar system.
@astroboomboy Mere change is not what most people would call information. Yes, the word information can mean different things, but ID talks about specification, a pattern which is independent of any natural cause, but meaningful to intelligent agents. For example, a flagellum is remarkable because it is a kind of motor; something we intelligent agents actually built before we discovered it in nature. The only proven cause of motors, is engineers. Are you asking us to have faith in evolution?
@andyjones1982 I'm not asking you to have faith in evolution, I don't care what you personally believe in. You can believe in Vishnu, Odin, Thor for all I care. But science relies on theories derived from either observation or verifiable experiments. God is simply a human construct which explains nothing about the world.
What do you mean by patterns independent of any natural cause?
Are you asking me to have faith in an invisible creature?
'Motor' is an example of pattern that exists independently of natural causation. I dont know how to explain that better. Seems obvious to me.
God is *not* a creature. Thats the whole difference. Science was *born* out of believing in a rational *transcendent* God, not out of the chaotic materialism believed by some ancient Greeks. Not transcendent in the hippy sense, more in the Matrix sense, where the real world transcends the Matrix.
'Motor' is an idea, a concept that humans created out of 'thin air' before it was discovered concretely in nature. Thus the concept exists independently of nature and natural causes.
@andyjones1982 That depends on what you define as natural causation. Human action is also part of natural causation.
I don't think I agree with you that science was born out of the belief in a transcendent god. Science is something that humans have been doing in various ways, and the idea of a transcendent god was quickly abandoned by most enlightenment thinkers/scientists.
The idea of an intelligent creator is not something you can prove in any sense. It will remain an idea.
@astroboomboy To me natural causes means not-intelligent as in "died of natural causes" as opposed to human intervention. Human causation is intelligent causation. We are arguing for intelligent causation. And intelligence can be natural or supernatural. In terms of science, ID remains *agnostic* about the supernatural, but many of its opponents are actually not agnostic, but actually actively ideologically opposed to the supernatural. That is what is really going on.
@astroboomboy Modern science grew up in a Christian environment, respect for nature without superstitious fear of it; thus it encouraged empirical study. A large percentage of scientists remain religious. Other people did science, but each culture was limited by their worldview. Buddhism teaches everything is an illusion. Greek thought says matter is chaotic, so there is no point doing empirical work with messy matter, only theoretical (with ideals in your head).
@andyjones1982 Modern materialism borrows the idea that nature/matter is fundamentally ordered according to rational / mathematical laws, but provides no explanation for this. Christianity (theism in general) provides the explanation, and originated the notion in the first place.
@andyjones1982 If the idea of intelligent design had any scientific value it would be used to explain certain aspects of nature. There isn't much you can discuss either. It's just a proposition, and nothing of value seems to come of it.
The theory of evolution on the other hand has been useful in every aspect of understanding life, and all serious biologists/chemists that have done any contribution to the field of science seem to agree on its basic tenets.
@astroboomboy Darwinism predicts junk with accidental function, but mostly junk. ID predicts function. Therefore when a Darwinists sees something he doesnt know what it is, he usually assumes its junk. e.g. the 'backward retina' or 'junk DNA'. These are usually raised precisely because ID predicts the opposite. But the nerves in front of the retina contain waveguides in the form of glial cells, and non-coding DNA now turns out to be doing a lot of different things. ID got those right. Google.
@andyjones1982 We will most likely create life in the future, and let cells evolve into thousands of different creatures. We will probably also find life on other planets. Our horizon will constantly broaden, and religious ideas will be pushed even more to the sideline than they are today.
Religion has never provided any answer to the fundamental questions of mankind. Otherwise we wouldn't pursue science the way we do today.
This is awful like a religious creed. On the other point of view, I see modern materialism as a Christian-influenced but inconsistent belief system (see below about retaining belief in fundamental laws), which is parochial, appropriates credit for things it did not achieve, and is increasingly at odds with actual discoveries. Though materialists soldier on at the Origin of Life question for now, this can only go on so long. Meyers book is actually very persuasive if you read it.
@andyjones1982 I don't think I will waste my time reading Meyers, but maybe someday. If any ID proponents ever get an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high esteem I will certainly read it. So far it's not one article.
The percentage of atheist/agnostic scientists has grown consistently in the past 50 years. At my institute there is one Buddhist, other than that I don't know of one religious person. Religious ideas don't belong in science.
@andyjones1982 BTW, unless your institute is tiny, there are probably loads of religious people. We just tend to keep quiet at work for the sake of people like you.
@andyjones1982 I don't think I will read Meyers before I have a better understanding of biology.
The scientists and atheism/agnostic issue is of course dependent on country. There was a study at my university where 92% of the researchers said they where atheist/agnostic. But I live in a country with few religious people in general.
US is probably different, but whatever you do never trust any research done by the Templeton Foundation, which I guess is where you have your data.
I dont trust Templeton either, because they actually fund anti-ID propaganda in the UK, but I dont think you can smudge those statistics too far. I am not US either, by the way.
Whats your area? Mine is actually physics, but I follow certain bits of biology avidly. I highly recommend getting a book about cells and cellular machinery even from a evo-friendly perspective, you will still be able to see how 'high-tech' it is.
@andyjones1982 Even according to a study from Templeton Foundation, if you look at the data, 64% of scientists in US don't believe in god, 8% believe in higher power but not god, 5% believe in god sometimes, 14% believe in god but have doubts, and ONLY 9% believe in god and have no doubt.
And that's the TF study, which is the study that has shown highest number of believers.
How typical of max--spam the hell out of everything while marking the posts showing he's a lying ass as spam. Then he accuses all sorts of people of being sox of one another, yet he is the sockmeister with more than 40 acounts he uses to trash up vids. But then what would you expect from someone with such a marked personality disorder? The twerp is too mentally disturbed to help himself.
Look how defensive you are because max pwned you, btw why are you accusing him of spamming when you spammed all my comments down that pwned you?
You failed on dna and biogenesis because I pwned you and max pwned you and everyone pwns you, Go back to the dunce stool ponte, spamming my comments is not going to save you. hahahahahahaha
You are in denial, Just like you are in denial about this being a sock account of yours, Tell us all how you are pontecanis cousin, That is good for a laugh just like you do not understand the meaning of the term biogenesis.
Hilarious as usual max. Since I am not transtlantic I pay no attention to posts to him; biogenesis, the arising of microorganisms that cause disease from prevoius contamination, and abiogenesis which is the chemical origin of life minus bogus supenatural influences are not related, minusmind, Too bad you can't understand. BTW, neither Galas or Hood agree with Meyer the liar--both oppose unintelligent maldesign and do not agree with Meyer's bonehead claims.
Despite the theorizing, DNA is neither binary or digital. DNA may be mimicked via digital means, which is what Hood and Galas do. The attempts to recreate DNA as a digital language have all failed because DNA is subject to influences that cannot be mimicked or accounted for. The singular failing systems thinkers have is the concept that biology may be reduced to a program that obeys mathematic and statistical parameters. DNA does not, as mutation cannot be mathematically predicted.
@Bjornagin AKA PompusAnus, "Too bad you can't understand. BTW, neither Galas or Hood agree with Meyer the liar--both oppose unintelligent maldesign and do not agree with Meyer's bonehead claims" -Lizard
SELF-PWNED as a sockpuppet. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Hi Pontecanis, I see that you forgot to sign out of your Bjornagin sock account by mistake, I also see that max is pwning you here Just like I pwned you.
Saying abiogenesis is not a violation of biogenesis is nothing more than special pleading, That you cannot understand what the biology books say or biogenesis is or what the definition of biogenesis is shows that you are either incredibly retarded or a liar, Now go back to your dunce stool.
Merriam Webster: "Definition of BIOGENESIS 1 : the development of life from preexisting life " You think abiogenesis does not violate this,.
You are so retarded Pontecanis aka trans etc (You have too many socks to mention) You have 0 credibility to judge anyone about anything when you are so damn stupid. Go back to the dunce corner and know your role dumbass.
and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes"
Remember when you said " abiogenesis does not violate biogenesis" and you said "abiogenesis is not evolution"
"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science:its digital nature a
I never quite understood this type of thinking.. If information must come from intelligence and you follow that chain right back to god.. who created god? Seriously does your logic just suddenly end when it comes to god, because if you always say information must be produced by intelligence you must also assume 'god' was created to.. right?
@rockinrobben1 God does not need a cause or beginning because he has no end, nor beginning. But we had a beginning, therefore we have an end, just like every other thing in existence. God is not subject to the natural laws that we are.
@amanda2324 Matter doesn't have an end. How do you know that god is not subject to the natural laws? You'r just making that up. How do you know that god has no beginning? You'r also just making that up.
You can say the same thing about matter. The basic building blocks of life are also lifeless matter that will never cease to exist. You can say that this matter has always existed, and that it just changes form.
Your claims are made up, and are impossible to prove.
>>You can say that this matter has always existed, and that it just changes form.<<
Thats a very ancient belief, but we would say someone made that up! The question for you, is the same question that puzzled Einstein: why is matter rational? Why does it obey laws that have elegant mathematical structure? Because God created it, and God is a rational Creator. We know God has no beginning, because he is not created, or derived from anything else.
@andyjones1982 Physics has structure which needs explaining. Also Quantum Mechanics is highly suggestive that matter is not even as real as the mathematics or information that is needed to describe its behaviour. Thats why people talk about paradoxes - how can a particle be in two places at once? That is not possible 'materially' but it is possible to describe mathematically, and it becomes reasonable when one realises Theism teaches that God *speaks* what we take to be real, into existence.
"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science:its digital nature a
and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes"
Remember when you said " abiogenesis does not violate biogenesis" and you said "abiogenesis is not evolution"
@TheLizardPeople aka jackalmate aka trans etc ( You have too many socks that you troll with to mention)
You didn't answer the question I asked you with your trans sock.
When did Richard Dawkins say for the theory of evolution that he believes in to be true we should expect no tree of life brancing pattern but a web of life pattern instead?
No wonder you rejected your evo faith as a fairytale with your trans sock and said " Darwinism LOLOL lolol" You knew that your evo faith is nonsense.
@WildCatsKitten1 Hilarious as usual max. Since I am not transtlantic I pay no attention to posts to him; biogenesis, the arising of microorganisms that cause disease from prevoius contamination, and abiogenesis which is the chemical origin of life minus bogus supenatural influences are not related, minusmind, Too bad you can't understand. BTW, neither Galas or Hood agree with Meyer the liar--both oppose unintelligent maldesign and do not agree with Meyer's bonehead claims.
Such a statement is highly *absurd* that order and rectitude should come about *without* a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and *fate* should suppose a Creator. He is an *ignoramus* who says this, because anything produced *without* design will ***never*** be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. Allah is far above what the *deluded and duped ignorant atheists* say.
1tabligh 5 days ago
Absurdity of Atheism!
If abiogenesis spontaneous creation *without* specific "design" can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of *error* ad perplexity, since these two are *opposed* to abiogenesis.
1tabligh 5 days ago
That id haven't provided an adequate positive account for the origin of life, and thus, be reduced to a gap argumentation.
MrAquinoflavio 1 week ago
Furthemore, meyer's methodology should be passible to laghter. We dont go looking for arbitrary causes. Just because geneticists are capable of gene manipulation, we dont invoke humans to explain the phylogentic evolution of species. Similarly, All the ''inteligence'' we know off, is encoded in a functional neuronal network, called ''brain'', and it is not clear wether intelligence can exist independently of one. Unless they provide a justification for this, I think it is pretty safe to say...
MrAquinoflavio 1 week ago
What is meyer talking about? We have on biochemical literature:
• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
How does that NOT conceptualize functional information meyer is talking about?
MrAquinoflavio 1 week ago
Hey Neph, I will appreciate it if you have a look at my first video and hear me out. Leave your thoughts, thanks in advance!
HomoSpaien78 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What about the christian who have accepted evolution as fact, how is your understanding of christianity correct and theirs not?
InsanityComplex1 1 week ago
So what if there is indeed a designer behind it all? All evidence still point towards something that is NOT described by any religions, especially Christianity. I laugh every time people use ideas like ID to support Christianity. No it doesn't, ok?
Casshyr 2 weeks ago
This subhuman Stephen Meyer is an enemy of Humanity. He got his paper thrown out of respectable circles. He is a fraud. A scumbag
699backstab 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@699backstab "This subhuman Stephen Meyer is an enemy of Humanity. He got his paper thrown out of respectable circles. He is a fraud. A scumbag
-What I don't understand is that if he's called out and blacklisted, why hasn't scripture been rejected...
InsanityComplex1 1 week ago
Chemicals, amino acids, and proteins aren't 'digital information.' They can be represented by information to be interpreted and that's how we understand biological science. This is just a semantics game and no better than claiming spontaneous generation to be a legitimate theory. This is not a scientific concept.
lolkaela 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 3 weeks ago
A hundred years from now,scientific methodology will uncover something about the Universe that we can't possibly imagine now.Scientists working in obscurity will painstakingly discover some new fact about the world.And Christians a hundred years hence will regard this discovery as evidence for god.It's all getting very boring.
henryporter101 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@disquisition73
"So if I have a higher IQ then you would that make me smarter? Its all dependent on the test giver. I could design a test that all evolutionists would fail."
Go to google, type "creation science quiz" and click the first link. Tell me if you pass it.
As far as the study goes, the IQ tests used were not tests of knowledge but rather of problem solving, critical thinking, pattern recognition, ect.
confettibrains 1 month ago
@disquisition73
please explain shared ERV insertions between distinct but related species, accurate predictions made by molecular phylogenetics, biogeography (species found in strata age and locations at predicted evolutionary origins), fusion of 2 ape chromosomes into 1 human chromosome, human embryonic stages that show vestigial gene expression of amphibians, or why all living species can be traced back to a predecessor (there are no genetically novel organisms)?
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
^ the existence of these facts are not open to debate, they are observations and empirical data, of which evolution theory is applied to to best explain why those facts occur.
If there was an intelligent designer, I don't see why there would be so many indicators of slow and chaotic creation, unless the supernatural entity designer is lazy and so made humans by jerryrigging two ape chromosomes together at the telomeres and copying/deletion errors between genes
confettibrains 1 month ago
@disquisition73
"The liberal evolutionist is drawn to academia because they worship the intellect"
Smart people are drawn to knowledge?
That coincides perfectly with a recent study on 137 countries which found people with lower IQs are more likely to believe in God/supernatural entities.
confettibrains 1 month ago
@disquisition73
"Most creationists are not liberals."
Obviously. The people who pass the most oppressive laws are christians/republicans. These same people are the ones who allow corporations to destroy the environment by blasting apart mountains and cutting down forests or haphazardly drilling oil under the ocean, all because their fucking religion tells them they have a God given right to exploit, destroy, dominate, and subdue Earth and animals however they please.
confettibrains 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@disquisition73
"The creationist doesn't have to do anything"
No, but if they don't, then they shouldn't expect people to accept their creation hypothesis.
"All scientists have to do is study the laws of nature"
They have, and they do. Evolution theory is a culmination of chemistry and observations made on life and Earth itself.
"All the data you want to disprove evolution is available"
Show me the chemistry that says the DNA molecule is not subject to beneficial change
confettibrains 1 month ago
@disquisition73
"if you didn't spend all your time trying to prove creation. But trying to prove evolution is a waste of time"
I don't try to prove either. I encourage creationists to explain the observed/empirical facts evolution theory is based on using their own creation hypothesis. I also want them to show me experimental data in chemistry that says molecular structures necessary for life (reproduction and a way of harvesting energy) cannot occur in nature.
confettibrains 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@disquisition73
"Cause your evolution theory can't hold under rationale scrutiny"
Are you referring to evolution theory, or "evolution theory" that people think includes abiogenesis?
The true theory of evolution; the transformation of existing life by accumulative changes to DNA/RNA, is well founded and thoroughly documented. It holds up quite well to attempts to falsify it. Strongest argument for creation: our 99.9% incomplete fossil record data can't show every transition
confettibrains 1 month ago
@disquisition73
"naturalism can not account for the origin of life"
Explain. Show me the chemistry that says self-replicating nucleic acid cannot enter a lipid bubble and extract chemical energy from the environment. All the constituents of life have been shown to form naturally, so tell us why a small percentage of the trillions upon trillions of randomly forming RNA/TNA strands on primordial earth could not arrange in unique structures (genes/shapes) capable of "living"?
confettibrains 1 month ago
@disquisition73
"nature cannot produce information"
So when RNA/TNA/GNA (or any nucleic acid polymere) forms naturally in randomly-sequenced segments, and a segment that was about 10-150 nucleotides long folded over on itself into shapes (ribozymes) that inherit characteristics similar to protein enzymes which could facilitate the replication of another RNA strand (genome)that consists of a sequence allowing it to make a protein/s (gene), you consider none of this "information"?
confettibrains 1 month ago
Until a creationist can show me the chemistry that says naturally occurring nucleic acid strands cannot fold into shapes analogous to enzymes and facilitate replication and metabolism, I see no reason to think their supernatural creation hypothesis has any merit.
All I get from these people is vague terminology and weak analogies like "information = requires creator. A watch can't make itself, therefore living molecular systems cannot form by chemical affinity!"
Talk science or not at all
confettibrains 1 month ago
An explanation as to what many have been the first life, isn't to explain how DNA came to be. As the first question about it should be is, "What is the simplest way we can have heredity information?".
It's slightly telling that Stephen doesn't make any effort to cut down the layers of complexity to the bare essentials for life. Since RNA is capable of doing much of the function of heredity information, being capable of self reproduction and function.
piprod01 1 month ago
you don't know where the dna code comes from so you attribute it to an invisible god who couldn't even dictate a plausible history of the universe. an insecure, racist, murderous, vain, hypocrite, was the author of the dna code??? you sir are an idiot
cotton9386 1 month ago
Anyone ceeking the truth will ceek to understand the motivations behind the Discovery Institute.
odinata 1 month ago
Creation hypothesis fails to properly explain facts such as shared ERV insertions between distinct but related species, 100% accurate predictions made by molecular phylogenetics, biogeography (where species are found in strata and locations at predicted evolutionary origins), fusion of 2 ape chromosomes into 1 human chromosome, human embryonic stages that show vestigial development as amphibians, or why ALL living species today can be traced back to an ancestor w/ NO completely novel organisms
confettibrains 1 month ago
DNA is not information, it is not digital either until some naive human inputs the molecular structure into a computer. DNA is nothing but a molecule that uses highly affinitive, highly specific binding properties to provide functions by proxy of proteins it creates complimentary to its sequence.
DNA is no more "divine" than RNA, or TNA, yet for some reason I don't see these bronze-age-thinkers worshiping these precursory genetic molecules? Why is that?
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
{DNA is not information}
DNA dictates the form of a organism. We know that the forms of organisms are not produced randomly because dogs will reproduce more dogs, having the same specific dog form. All other organisms will do the same. Thus, required is something that accounts for the reproduction of specific forms that are different from other lifeforms but the same as their progenitors. That "something" can only be information. When a child possesses his
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"DNA dictates the form of a organism"
You could look at it that way in literature. But thats not what nucleic acid does. Nucleic acid is nothing more than a polymere consisting of only a few molecular variants that repeat many times. The position of the molecules and what other molecules they're next to dictates what amino acids will be brought together close enough to create peptide bonds
"Information" is just the idiots' way of understanding chemistry
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
{The position of the molecules and what other molecules they're next to dictates what amino acids will be brought together}
Thats precisely as indicated by Dr. Meyer. He said that the information is "encoded". However, he was delivering a media message, not a university lecture. Therefor, he understands that its not the time to go into the details of the Biology. Its standard practice that for media presentations, a summarized explanation is stated
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"Therefor, he understands that its not the time to go into the details of the Biology."
LOL. It never seems to be the time for creationists to go into scientific detail when discussing scientific matters. And that's mostly because they can't. Just as the bible writers left some matters vague because they predicted they'd be proven wrong in the future, creationists must also leave explanations vague for the same reason.
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
The information is encoded, chemically
{"Information" is just the idiots' way of understanding chemistry}
That statement is merely the idiot's way of not understanding "encoding"
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"The information is encoded, chemically"
Chemicals are not code. The arrangement of cellulose fibers into paper is not code. The pressure differentials of weather is not code. The radio-thermal process within earth is not a code. Nuclear fusion of stars is not code. Chemistry is not a code. You interpret it as code because you either don't know any other way, or you don't want to think of it realistically in order to sustain your notions of creation.
confettibrains 1 month ago
father's eyes, there must exist something that directs the process which forms those eyes to their particular specifications. If the father's eyes are large, with a droopy shape & green in color, then only the information of those specific traits can direct the reproduction of those eyes within the child
Its as Dr. Meyer stated, all Biologists that study origins, understand that "information" is the relevant matter & science has already concluded that information = intelligence
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"information = intelligence"
Writing information about life takes intelligence. But life does not operate on information.
If you were to describe an orange, such as saying it's round, rough textured, orange in color, weighs about a pound, then that is information. But the orange itself doesn't use any of that information. The orange grows only due to chemistry.
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
{But the orange itself doesn't use any of that information. The orange grows due to chemistry}
This assumes that every orange produced by a tree, is formed as a sphere with a rough texture & colored orange because random chance simply happens to cause that every time. I've already explained that when reproduction occurs, organisms produce their own kind because the information of their form & particular physical traits is what directs the process
Chemical code!
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"when reproduction occurs, organisms produce their own kind because the information of their form & particular physical traits is what directs the process"
Organisms produce their own kind (most of the time) because their molecular structure is replicated and it preforms nearly the same bonding characteristics. Offspring are not really "new" organisms, but rather extensions of the previous one. Every living thing is just a continuation of a preceding organism.
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
{it is not digital}
Everything of the natural world is digital. When one swims underwater from one end of a pool to the other end, it may seem as though water is analog but we know its composed of 2 Hydrogen digits & 1 Oxygen digit. Molecules are composed of atom digits & atoms are composed of particle digits. Now you know what "digital" means. Its not exclusive to electronics with blinking lights & beeping sounds
Its been discovered that what we perceive as
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chuichupachichi
"Everything of the natural world is digital. When one swims underwater from one end of a pool to the other end, it may seem as though water is analog but we know its composed of digits"
You can stick two items together and label them with the number "2" but that number has absolutely nothing to do with those items' physical existence. It's just the way you choose to see them. Water is not water because of a number, it's water because of its structure
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
{Water is not water because of a number, it's water because of its structure}
Precisely...& its molecular structure consists of 3 molecule digits...2 Hydrogen digits & 1 Oxygen digit
BTW, don't allow the tyrannically greedy, corporate oligarchy to fool you anymore. Internal combustion engines need simply fuel that explodes. Water is comprised of only things that explode...Hydrogen & Oxygen
Crude = power & exploitation then they say man's Carbons = Global Warming
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"Water is comprised of only things that explode...Hydrogen & Oxygen"
Please, tell us how to effectively split it from a non-combustible state at lower costs than conventional petroleum fuel. Don't accuse if you can't address.
confettibrains 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Chuichupachichi
"then they say man's Carbons = Global Warming"
Are you one of those people who think the Earth is infallible to chemical influences and that God still controls the weather? Or do you simply deny co2's ability to reflect infrared back towards the surface?
confettibrains 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"Precisely...& its molecular structure consists of 3 molecule digits...2 Hydrogen digits & 1 Oxygen digit"
That sentence consists of 12 words, therefore it is numerical code! Written language is actually just a compilation of digits!
confettibrains 1 month ago
empty, analog space, is in fact, digital. Biological organisms, including humans & our DNA, are also "digital"
{bronze-age-thinkers}
At least we actually think. However, the reason why degree of antiquity is the evolutionist's criteria for determining one's degree of acumen & the validity or invalidity of a view, is because evolutionists completely lack acumen & validity, due to subscribing to the stone age, Sumerian, religious tale known as "theory of evolution"
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"Biological organisms, including humans & our DNA, are also "digital"
No. If we scan nucleic acid and view its sequence on a machine, then that is digital. But DNA itself is not digital, it's physical, and it exists independently of digits or labels
"At least we actually think"
Religion doesn't leave much room to think. In fact, there were periods where if someone thought TOO much they'd be burned to death.
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
{But DNA itself is not digital, it's physical}
You seem to perceive that digital means virtual. I've already explained that digital is not exclusive to electronics. The word digital simply came to be commonly associated with the electronic age because the previous use of analog meters & dials were exchanged for LCD digital displays
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
"Digital" is associated with the computer age because software code is written with digits. Thus, Sims are digital beings existing within a virtual environment. The ironic thing is that man has designed & created such things from his intelligence, i.e. consciousness. While Quantum Physics has revealed that the Materialist view is invalid & we humans are digital beings existing within a materially virtual environment. We're Sims being monitored on the universally cosmic plasma
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"However, the reason why degree of antiquity is the evolutionist's criteria for determining one's degree of acumen & the validity"
Nope. It's just one of many easy ways to discredit ancient mythology. But scientists don't need to bring up its date. All they have to do is point out how the bible writers falsely described key aspects of reality, or point out some of the many clear indications that the bible is anthropomorphic imagination rather than God's word
confettibrains 1 month ago
@confettibrains
{Nope. It's just one of many easy ways to discredit ancient mythology}
ha ha, if you simply knew half as much as you talk & if you could think critically, you might have already discovered that Greek Mythology, which is commonly perceived as the mother of all fiction, is in fact, "encoded information" of real occurrences. Trust me, I spent an entire semester of 7th grade English learning Greek Mythology
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@confettibrains
That means I was already then, capable of critical thinking, while the correct execution of such cognitive functions continue to elude you. Also, The Lord Of The Rings, i.e. The Hobbit has long been recognized to be "encoded information", i.e. metaphorical of things true to life
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@confettibrains
Evolutionary theory & Paganism/Satanism share a common origins within Sumerian culture. Thats why atheist evolutionists are the White Wizard's useful, idiot, "Orc" pawns, used within the war waged upon Americans, i.e. Christians
Remember Gothmog, the Orc's Field General? He was an evolutionarily heavily mutated, reproductive defect
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@confettibrains
{some of the many clear indications that the bible is anthropomorphic imagination rather than God's word}
But you, those scientists & anyone else that would agree with your above statement, all put forth deficient, weak arguments
Its all there, available for viewing. The case has been presented...if you think you have a winner, then take up your arguments or those of anyone else & pit them against those of Simon Greenleaf...if you enjoy looking a fool
Chuichupachichi 1 month ago
@Chuichupachichi
"due to subscribing to the stone age, Sumerian, religious tale known as "theory of evolution""
Funny, because the bible's Garden of Eden story actually was stolen from ancient Sumer. LOL
confettibrains 1 month ago
This is so bad that I can't even bring myself to mock it.
TheCrimsonTongue 1 month ago
95% of all scientist believe in evolution. it is redundant nowadays to battle evolution with creationism.
Hinduspy 1 month ago
funny how someone responds to videos like these negatively and don't have any counter argument pretty sad.
HeroBidd0 1 month ago
Bitch please.
AlienNext100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How am I not surprised DiscoveryInstitute censors votes.
Btw, technically DNA isn't even a code.
GnosticHumanist 1 month ago
God no but aliens might have created this. God couldn't do it as God is an omnipotent being, all-knowing, perfect being but DNA is not perfect...
lkrnpk 1 month ago
DNA changes, information evolved.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@TheRacer909 You went to school but you didn't learn anything. Read a science book.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@TheRacer909 So how many fossils did you study? Or did you watch creationists videos on Piltdown Man? Or stupid shit like, ''Where is the information come from''
It EVOLVED.
gregrutz 2 months ago
Comment removed
damo2353 2 months ago
....
Criticallyincorrect 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRacer909
"All they do is indoctrinate you with the evolution "
You never studied evolution in your entire life.
Not once.
Lying sack of shit.
odinata 2 months ago
@TheRacer909 Hey dimbulb--check Pasteur's work, wonk-brain! What was he working on, stupid? Oh yeah, FOOD SPOILAGE! What a hack-brain!
TheLizardPeople 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A question for the ID proponent.
If something is so complex that it must require a designer (which I understand is the basic tenet of ID), and the example of, say, DNA is used to make the point, then there must also exist something so simple that it DOESN`T require a designer. If there isn`t such simplicity, then the word complex has no meaning, because everything then is complex, and therefore everything requires a designer. It`s circular.
So, challenge: Give an example of such simplicity.
RationalThinker1859 2 months ago
@TheRacer909 ~Thank you for proving my point.BTW, if creationism is correct, how is it that dinsaur and human fossils are never found together? Or that the Burgess Shales contain no fossils with backbones--no reptiles, no amphibians, no mammals, no fish, no dinosaurs, no hominids, no birds, just invertebrates...impossible according to creationism. Oops!
pontecanis 2 months ago
@pontecanis Do a Google Image search human footprint with dinosaur tracks. Just sayin.
chris7777777777777 2 months ago
@chris7777777777777 Do a search for 'Paluxy River hoax'...or see 'Carl Baugh hoaxes'.
pontecanis 2 months ago
@chris7777777777777 Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates for over 160 million years, from the late Triassic period (230 million years ago) until the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago), when the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event caused the extinction of most dinosaur species, except for some birds. Just stating the facts.
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz There are already recent reports about proteins in dinosaur bones - which contradicts those MILLIONS of years.
Fantasticlist 2 months ago
@Fantasticlist NO, they found breakdown products in the 70 million year old FOSSILS [not bones]
gregrutz 2 months ago
@gregrutz Yes I understand how you cant assume proteins in fossils with "millions" of years.
Fantasticlist 2 months ago
@Fantasticlist
Why aren't their any non-partisan scientists who believe in a Young Earth?
odinata 2 months ago
@odinata Because they are partisan to Evolution.
Fantasticlist 2 months ago
@Fantasticlist
Why are there so many Christians who accept the fact of evolution?
And that it is idiotic to assert the Earth is 6000 years old?
odinata 2 months ago
@odinata A Christian who accepts the theory of evolution is like an atheist who accepts the fact of creation.
It will end to be idiotic in the day you research and study outside the mainstream ideas that the world put in your head, trust me.
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
@Fantasticlist
So you are saying that only your religious opinions are the right ones.
Thank you.
This is why you are worthless.
odinata 1 month ago
@odinata What a terrible conclusion...... I never said that - even more because I have no religious opinions. That "conclusion" it's based in a required idea created in your mind only. Created by the need of giving an explanation for the difference of what you belief.
Finally, as all atheists/evolutionists you had to attack me personally. It always happen when you have nothing better to say. So predictable.
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
@Fantasticlist : You have to excuse him. With all the respect, its hard to maintain manners in front of someone who uses embarassingly bad arguments from a uncontroversily dishonest philosopher. So, can you tell me 3 or 4 serious information theorists who accepts the ''specified complexity'' measure of information and are not of the design institute?
MrAquinoflavio 1 month ago
@MrAquinoflavio "uncontroversily dishonest philosopher" ? Information theorists? Specified complexity? Design Institute? Whatttttt? Explain yourself, your message was a total mess.
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
@Fantasticlist : Thats easy. He's dishonest. Because he promotes a concept wich doesn't even have a coherent definition(specified complexity) as if it is accepted by majority of information theorists. And he belongs to the design institute, wich is a institute for promoting design. The point is, he makes bad arguments, rejected by majority of evolutionary biologists and information theorists.
MrAquinoflavio 1 month ago
@MrAquinoflavio Did you read his book? I bet you didnt. It is coherent even if you dont agree with.
Who told you something had to be accepted by the majority to be true? The truth is in the number?
Would he be able to belong to an evolution institute? No. He would be kicked off by not follow the mainstream tale of evolution.
Rejected by majority of evolutionary biologists....Do you know something, Dawkins is rejected by all creationist biologists. lol Now what?
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
@Fantasticlist : ''Its coherent''... Why dont you read a paper written by REAL information theorists like jeffrey shallit and wesley elsberry? Just google it, its called Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and
Dembski's Complex Specified Information".
They DESTROY that phony called dembsky, and consequently, the phony called meyer. Unlike both meyer and dembsky, they are both authorities on this subject, because they are on their own field.
MrAquinoflavio 1 month ago
@MrAquinoflavio Do you want me to talk about an entire paper in a small comment like this? At the same time, that is old and it has already an answer in the same institute of this video. If you're interested, discovery(dot)org/a/14911
What would make them those who have the truth? They wrote that at almost 10 years and the argument is still valid. It is not only for evoheads that need to debunk it so they can still have their faith in the only thing they believe.
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
@Fantasticlist : Thats what you get by putting someone outside of their fields against someone who knows what he is talking about. Briefly, some mistakes:
- Casey luskin mistankenly attributes design a status of a positive explanation.
Unless you explain how an intelligence can exist apart from a neural system and give a positive description of the designer, it will be limited to useless criticism of darwinism.
MrAquinoflavio 1 month ago
@MrAquinoflavio Do you know what a positive explanation means? It means you already have a positive cause for something. In the case of life, an intelligent designer.
You need to tell me what is your "positive description of the designer." Because you seem to use this to deny the positive explanation of the designer. And facing a positive evidence for a designer, you may not want to accept it as supernatural and so denying that positive evidence.
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
@Fantasticlist :-In response to the false positives, casey has argued that shallit ignore natural causes and are precipitated in applying SC. I almost fell from my chair listening to this. I mean, does his ignorance upon the literature of mutation and natural selction reach this point? (See talk origins cb102). Can't they be a natural explanation in the context of biology? As you can see by the links, the evidence for microevolution and consequently, macroevolution is almost as
MrAquinoflavio 1 month ago
@Fantasticlist : As well attested as the other causes. It obviously has problems as he mentions it, but so have relativity. We dont have to recur to misticism to deal with these problems. Another god of the gaps argument.
- Thirdly, he ignores the most important criticism section, the one that talks about the incoherence of specification. If that is pertinent, then sc fails. (Check on the paper) And there was nothing on that. Does the number 143 have sc? Why or why not?
MrAquinoflavio 1 month ago
@MrAquinoflavio Maybe because incoherence of specification makes no sense at all. There are no cases of incoherence of specification when you assume specification, ie, by assuming a specific complex structure which is real and works, it has no incoherence. How could it be incoherent?
OTOH you have a lot of incoherence in evolution.
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
@Fantasticlist you're stupid
xDockmanx 1 month ago
@xDockmanx I'm glad you liked it.
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
Comment removed
Fantasticlist 1 month ago
@TheRacer909 Hilarious!! CreationistWon??? You won't find any facts there, but you might actually look at Pasteur's work itself, which is readily available online. He was studying the spoilage of food and discovered that when microorganism growth was prevented, spoilage was hugely reduced. Where do you think pasteurization came from? BTW is your dictionary Conservapedia by any chance? Or maybe a "definition" provided by Kent Hovind?
pontecanis 2 months ago
@TheRacer909 Poor fellow: biogenesis refers to organisms that spoil food, and in that regard, mircroorganisms only arise from previous contamination. Pasteur was not referring to life ab initio in any way. Back to school.
TheLizardPeople 2 months ago
How is it that by supposedly answering the question concerning a 'creator' or 'first cause' we should then feel that we have resolved the question of creation. One is wont to then ask next, 'Who created the creator'? We are that we are...and that's about as good as it's ever gonna get.
zenmeister451 2 months ago
This is the 1000th comment.
lethalsub 2 months ago
I always love this argument. Design requires intelligence to produce it, therefore, there must be an intelligence, but he doesn't require intelligence to be produced, he just always was, but for you to suggest skipping this whole line of "reasoning" and just consider that the product "always was", it's obviously incorrect. The universe is "too complicated", it needs a designer that is more complicated than it, but that designer doesn't. ....k. Moving on.
Linazazel 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Linazazel
"but he doesn't require intelligence to be produced, he just always was"
Read up on the Munchausen trilemma and some basic epistemology. Then try again.
JCrownwell 2 months ago
Those stats sound a little high to me, but ok, there is definitely some correlation. Yes, we have a strongly materialistic culture in the science community, and a general belief that what we *do* is materialism, but it isnt! What we *do* is careful analysis of predictive hypotheses, and ID fits comfortably in with that. ID gets up peoples noses because it challenges an a priori ('faith'-like) position called materialism. Its a little bit like sectarianism.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
Comment removed
andyjones1982 2 months ago
Intelligent design is only wishful thinking. The really terrible thing is that muslim clerics have started to promote these kinds of claims, and it is seeping its way into schools all across the middle east.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
Just finished the book. It is a brilliant refutation of Neo-Darwinism!
clearlythink 2 months ago
@clearlythink ??? Nothing Meyer the liar has ever done can be considered brilliant, except to refute his own fool nonsense even as he is promulgating it.
Bjornagin 2 months ago
@clearlythink How is it a refutation? His book has been completely slaughtered by several biologists, chemists, and philosophers alike. Read Stephen Fletcher's refutation of Meyers. Like all the other intelligent design "thinkers" he never provides any compelling and true arguments.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
This is bull, information does not have to be created by intelligence. Matter itself is most likely information at its deepest level, even space and time may be discreet units of information. Chemistry is information, and that does definitely not need intelligence to be created, it is shaped if the conditions are met. This guy should have studied theology instead of biology.
astroboomboy 3 months ago
@astroboomboy "This is bull, information does not have to be created by intelligence."
Prove it.
"Matter itself is most likely information at its deepest level, even space and time may be discreet units of information."
MOST LIKELY. Not a very convincing statement.
"it is shaped if the conditions are met."
And how likely are certain conditions met WITHOUT human intervention?
amanda2324 2 months ago
@amanda2324 Any structure has information, and this information changes over time. New information is created in this way without any intelligence. Change over time is new information in and of itself.
Now where is your proof that matter has to be created by intelligence? And if so, who created that intelligence. The argument from intelligence design doesn't solve any of the problems.
We can't know how likely the conditions are since we haven't even ventured out of our own solar system.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy Mere change is not what most people would call information. Yes, the word information can mean different things, but ID talks about specification, a pattern which is independent of any natural cause, but meaningful to intelligent agents. For example, a flagellum is remarkable because it is a kind of motor; something we intelligent agents actually built before we discovered it in nature. The only proven cause of motors, is engineers. Are you asking us to have faith in evolution?
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 I'm not asking you to have faith in evolution, I don't care what you personally believe in. You can believe in Vishnu, Odin, Thor for all I care. But science relies on theories derived from either observation or verifiable experiments. God is simply a human construct which explains nothing about the world.
What do you mean by patterns independent of any natural cause?
Are you asking me to have faith in an invisible creature?
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy
'Motor' is an example of pattern that exists independently of natural causation. I dont know how to explain that better. Seems obvious to me.
God is *not* a creature. Thats the whole difference. Science was *born* out of believing in a rational *transcendent* God, not out of the chaotic materialism believed by some ancient Greeks. Not transcendent in the hippy sense, more in the Matrix sense, where the real world transcends the Matrix.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982
'Motor' is an idea, a concept that humans created out of 'thin air' before it was discovered concretely in nature. Thus the concept exists independently of nature and natural causes.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 That depends on what you define as natural causation. Human action is also part of natural causation.
I don't think I agree with you that science was born out of the belief in a transcendent god. Science is something that humans have been doing in various ways, and the idea of a transcendent god was quickly abandoned by most enlightenment thinkers/scientists.
The idea of an intelligent creator is not something you can prove in any sense. It will remain an idea.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy To me natural causes means not-intelligent as in "died of natural causes" as opposed to human intervention. Human causation is intelligent causation. We are arguing for intelligent causation. And intelligence can be natural or supernatural. In terms of science, ID remains *agnostic* about the supernatural, but many of its opponents are actually not agnostic, but actually actively ideologically opposed to the supernatural. That is what is really going on.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@astroboomboy Modern science grew up in a Christian environment, respect for nature without superstitious fear of it; thus it encouraged empirical study. A large percentage of scientists remain religious. Other people did science, but each culture was limited by their worldview. Buddhism teaches everything is an illusion. Greek thought says matter is chaotic, so there is no point doing empirical work with messy matter, only theoretical (with ideals in your head).
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 Modern materialism borrows the idea that nature/matter is fundamentally ordered according to rational / mathematical laws, but provides no explanation for this. Christianity (theism in general) provides the explanation, and originated the notion in the first place.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 If the idea of intelligent design had any scientific value it would be used to explain certain aspects of nature. There isn't much you can discuss either. It's just a proposition, and nothing of value seems to come of it.
The theory of evolution on the other hand has been useful in every aspect of understanding life, and all serious biologists/chemists that have done any contribution to the field of science seem to agree on its basic tenets.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy Darwinism predicts junk with accidental function, but mostly junk. ID predicts function. Therefore when a Darwinists sees something he doesnt know what it is, he usually assumes its junk. e.g. the 'backward retina' or 'junk DNA'. These are usually raised precisely because ID predicts the opposite. But the nerves in front of the retina contain waveguides in the form of glial cells, and non-coding DNA now turns out to be doing a lot of different things. ID got those right. Google.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 We will most likely create life in the future, and let cells evolve into thousands of different creatures. We will probably also find life on other planets. Our horizon will constantly broaden, and religious ideas will be pushed even more to the sideline than they are today.
Religion has never provided any answer to the fundamental questions of mankind. Otherwise we wouldn't pursue science the way we do today.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy
This is awful like a religious creed. On the other point of view, I see modern materialism as a Christian-influenced but inconsistent belief system (see below about retaining belief in fundamental laws), which is parochial, appropriates credit for things it did not achieve, and is increasingly at odds with actual discoveries. Though materialists soldier on at the Origin of Life question for now, this can only go on so long. Meyers book is actually very persuasive if you read it.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 I don't think I will waste my time reading Meyers, but maybe someday. If any ID proponents ever get an article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high esteem I will certainly read it. So far it's not one article.
The percentage of atheist/agnostic scientists has grown consistently in the past 50 years. At my institute there is one Buddhist, other than that I don't know of one religious person. Religious ideas don't belong in science.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy You are wasting plenty of time here, so why not try Meyers book :P
Or evoinfo.org (search for publications)
Or search for "scientists really so atheistic".
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 BTW, unless your institute is tiny, there are probably loads of religious people. We just tend to keep quiet at work for the sake of people like you.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 I don't think I will read Meyers before I have a better understanding of biology.
The scientists and atheism/agnostic issue is of course dependent on country. There was a study at my university where 92% of the researchers said they where atheist/agnostic. But I live in a country with few religious people in general.
US is probably different, but whatever you do never trust any research done by the Templeton Foundation, which I guess is where you have your data.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@astroboomboy
I dont trust Templeton either, because they actually fund anti-ID propaganda in the UK, but I dont think you can smudge those statistics too far. I am not US either, by the way.
Whats your area? Mine is actually physics, but I follow certain bits of biology avidly. I highly recommend getting a book about cells and cellular machinery even from a evo-friendly perspective, you will still be able to see how 'high-tech' it is.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 Even according to a study from Templeton Foundation, if you look at the data, 64% of scientists in US don't believe in god, 8% believe in higher power but not god, 5% believe in god sometimes, 14% believe in god but have doubts, and ONLY 9% believe in god and have no doubt.
And that's the TF study, which is the study that has shown highest number of believers.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
How typical of max--spam the hell out of everything while marking the posts showing he's a lying ass as spam. Then he accuses all sorts of people of being sox of one another, yet he is the sockmeister with more than 40 acounts he uses to trash up vids. But then what would you expect from someone with such a marked personality disorder? The twerp is too mentally disturbed to help himself.
TheLizardPeople 3 months ago
@TheLizardPeople aka pontecanis aka trans etc
Look how defensive you are because max pwned you, btw why are you accusing him of spamming when you spammed all my comments down that pwned you?
You failed on dna and biogenesis because I pwned you and max pwned you and everyone pwns you, Go back to the dunce stool ponte, spamming my comments is not going to save you. hahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
@WildCatsKitten1 Max you have never pwned a living soul at any time.
TheLizardPeople 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLizardPeople
Hi Pontecanis etc
You are in denial, Just like you are in denial about this being a sock account of yours, Tell us all how you are pontecanis cousin, That is good for a laugh just like you do not understand the meaning of the term biogenesis.
Back to the dunce stool for you ponte.
hahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLizardBrain aka PompusAnus HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR listen to the crying and bawling. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 3 months ago
Comment removed
Bjornagin 3 months ago
Hilarious as usual max. Since I am not transtlantic I pay no attention to posts to him; biogenesis, the arising of microorganisms that cause disease from prevoius contamination, and abiogenesis which is the chemical origin of life minus bogus supenatural influences are not related, minusmind, Too bad you can't understand. BTW, neither Galas or Hood agree with Meyer the liar--both oppose unintelligent maldesign and do not agree with Meyer's bonehead claims.
TheLizardPeople 15 hours ago
Bjornagin 3 months ago
Comment removed
Bjornagin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Despite the theorizing, DNA is neither binary or digital. DNA may be mimicked via digital means, which is what Hood and Galas do. The attempts to recreate DNA as a digital language have all failed because DNA is subject to influences that cannot be mimicked or accounted for. The singular failing systems thinkers have is the concept that biology may be reduced to a program that obeys mathematic and statistical parameters. DNA does not, as mutation cannot be mathematically predicted.
pontecanis 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bjornagin AKA PompusAnus, "Too bad you can't understand. BTW, neither Galas or Hood agree with Meyer the liar--both oppose unintelligent maldesign and do not agree with Meyer's bonehead claims" -Lizard
SELF-PWNED as a sockpuppet. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealius 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bjornagin
Hi Pontecanis, I see that you forgot to sign out of your Bjornagin sock account by mistake, I also see that max is pwning you here Just like I pwned you.
Saying abiogenesis is not a violation of biogenesis is nothing more than special pleading, That you cannot understand what the biology books say or biogenesis is or what the definition of biogenesis is shows that you are either incredibly retarded or a liar, Now go back to your dunce stool.
hahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLizardPeople
For your pea brain.
Merriam Webster: "Definition of BIOGENESIS 1 : the development of life from preexisting life " You think abiogenesis does not violate this,.
You are so retarded Pontecanis aka trans etc (You have too many socks to mention) You have 0 credibility to judge anyone about anything when you are so damn stupid. Go back to the dunce corner and know your role dumbass.
hahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLizardPeople
and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes"
Remember when you said " abiogenesis does not violate biogenesis" and you said "abiogenesis is not evolution"
Those were howlers too pontecanis
hahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLizardPeople aka pontecanis aka jackalmate aka trans etc
Hi pontecanis
" The digital code of DNA" Nature.
Leroy Hood1 & David Galas2
Top of page
Abstract
"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science:its digital nature a
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
I never quite understood this type of thinking.. If information must come from intelligence and you follow that chain right back to god.. who created god? Seriously does your logic just suddenly end when it comes to god, because if you always say information must be produced by intelligence you must also assume 'god' was created to.. right?
rockinrobben1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rockinrobben1 God is eternal. He always was and always will be. He didn't need to be created, but you did.
MaximusArurealius 3 months ago
@rockinrobben1 God does not need a cause or beginning because he has no end, nor beginning. But we had a beginning, therefore we have an end, just like every other thing in existence. God is not subject to the natural laws that we are.
amanda2324 2 months ago
@amanda2324 Matter doesn't have an end. How do you know that god is not subject to the natural laws? You'r just making that up. How do you know that god has no beginning? You'r also just making that up.
You can say the same thing about matter. The basic building blocks of life are also lifeless matter that will never cease to exist. You can say that this matter has always existed, and that it just changes form.
Your claims are made up, and are impossible to prove.
astroboomboy 2 months ago
@astroboomboy
>>You can say that this matter has always existed, and that it just changes form.<<
Thats a very ancient belief, but we would say someone made that up! The question for you, is the same question that puzzled Einstein: why is matter rational? Why does it obey laws that have elegant mathematical structure? Because God created it, and God is a rational Creator. We know God has no beginning, because he is not created, or derived from anything else.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
@andyjones1982 Physics has structure which needs explaining. Also Quantum Mechanics is highly suggestive that matter is not even as real as the mathematics or information that is needed to describe its behaviour. Thats why people talk about paradoxes - how can a particle be in two places at once? That is not possible 'materially' but it is possible to describe mathematically, and it becomes reasonable when one realises Theism teaches that God *speaks* what we take to be real, into existence.
andyjones1982 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Stephen Meyer on unintelligent malesign: What is the origin of digital information found in DNA? Answer: NONE--DNA is not digital. Meyer is a liar.
TheLizardPeople 3 months ago
@TheLizardPeople Sure he is. He has exposed the flimsy pseudoscience of darwin.
9pt9 3 months ago
@TheLizardPeople aka pontecanis aka jackalmate aka trans etc
Hi pontecanis
" The digital code of DNA" Nature.
Leroy Hood1 & David Galas2
Top of page
Abstract
"The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science:its digital nature a
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
@TheLizardPeople
and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes"
Remember when you said " abiogenesis does not violate biogenesis" and you said "abiogenesis is not evolution"
Those were howlers too pontecanis
hahahahahahahaha
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
Comment removed
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheLizardPeople aka jackalmate aka trans etc ( You have too many socks that you troll with to mention)
You didn't answer the question I asked you with your trans sock.
When did Richard Dawkins say for the theory of evolution that he believes in to be true we should expect no tree of life brancing pattern but a web of life pattern instead?
No wonder you rejected your evo faith as a fairytale with your trans sock and said " Darwinism LOLOL lolol" You knew that your evo faith is nonsense.
WildCatsKitten1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WildCatsKitten1 Hilarious as usual max. Since I am not transtlantic I pay no attention to posts to him; biogenesis, the arising of microorganisms that cause disease from prevoius contamination, and abiogenesis which is the chemical origin of life minus bogus supenatural influences are not related, minusmind, Too bad you can't understand. BTW, neither Galas or Hood agree with Meyer the liar--both oppose unintelligent maldesign and do not agree with Meyer's bonehead claims.
TheLizardPeople 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show