Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

--DESPERATE EQUIVOCATING SNIPPED--​

Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term code cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."

Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

1. humans have the best developed eye for all around use of any creature on earth.
making you first statement false.
2. since humans are bipedal and our feet were first evolved for climbing not running at high speed and then re adapted for long distance walking. as a species we and our ape relatives did not evolve high running speed because none was necessary for survival. you are comparing apples to screwdrivers!
3. we are the strongest of our species
your's is a false comparison.
4. again a false comparison, our olfactory system is no less developed then our ape cousins.


"if your theory be true and then evidence to back your claim not conjecture as your answer once again." YWC..

I'll ask you TO back youR conjecture with evidence also. not UNPROVABLE BIBLICAL QUOTES OR CREATION PSEUDOSCIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE BELIEFS YOU FALSELY CALL EVIDENCE.

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

The above is more creationist nonsense. Beginning with a false assumption and then proceeding to false conclusions is a creationist pathology. To presume that "former human ancestors" possessed superior physical attributes but somehow lost them is utterly ridiculous. As usual, the creationist is unable to present a defendable case for his claims and reduced to making outrageous claims building upon presumption and false notions.

You show your ignorance on genetics and the genepool.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.

Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.

One of these days I hope you wise up.

 

[ima]

Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.

Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.

One of these days I hope you wise up.

Seriously though, anyone who writes that Noah was 600 years old can't count.

 

[LOki]

--DESPERATE EQUIVOCATING SNIPPED--​

Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term code cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."

Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?

Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.

why does this take place ?

It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

 

[Hollie]

Think again.

1. 10 Most Incredible Eyes in the Animal Kingdom
2. Can gorillas run faster then the average human
3. The Secret To Chimp Strength

You are once again wrong, I ask you again if we are related to all these different organisms where did these genetic traits go ? why do these not exist in our gene pool ? I guess Daws forgot according to his theory humans are part of the animal kingdom and can't answer why we do not possess these superior traits,he failed once again.Never did address the sense of smell our so called relatives possess that we do not possess.

Nice dodge ! and misinformation.

The above is more creationist nonsense. Beginning with a false assumption and then proceeding to false conclusions is a creationist pathology. To presume that "former human ancestors" possessed superior physical attributes but somehow lost them is utterly ridiculous. As usual, the creationist is unable to present a defendable case for his claims and reduced to making outrageous claims building upon presumption and false notions.

You show your ignorance on genetics and the genepool.

Actually, you inability to deal honestly with the failure of Christian creationism to present a workable framework for how "the gods did it" is the reason for the utter absurdity of creationist beliefs. Christian creationist views of science are, of course, skewed in desperate attempts to alter science to "fit' literal biblical tales and fables.

You should also be aware that the framing of your silly claims regarding the alleged lost attributes of modern humans vs. earlier ancestors is an explicit recognition of the process of evolution. That simply won't fit the literal Christian creation tale. What is laughable, however, is your claim that modern humans somehow lost a number of attributes possessed by earlier ancestors. Of course, you failed to demonstrate that those earlier ancestors actually possessed the attributes you have assigned to them and you failed to address any lineage connecting those alleged earlier ancestors with modern humans.

Basically, your comments amount to a disjointed, irrelevant and specious series of claims, totally unsupported and not requiring anything more than dismissal as a waste of time.

 

[Hollie]

Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.

Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.

One of these days I hope you wise up.

I can scarsely think of a worse fate for the US than to be dragged back into the Dark Ages of fear and superstition furthered by Christian fundamentalists.

 

[UltimateReality]

They cannot possibly say anything to those who just refuse to read them (because they already "know" the post says nothing).

Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, ...

Typical. Both of you superstitious retards are in desperate denial that your precious notion regarding DNA being an "informed" molecule has been shit-canned for such easily and plainly understood reasons.

You really have no substantive rebuttal to offer, so you console your butt-hurt with a dismissive denial of reality.

... I would first like to say that the link you provided to dictionary.com for code that dna isn't, contained definitions for genetic code. Do you even read your own links, Pumpkin Head???

Yet you still FLATLY REFUSE to acknowledge the distinction made.

BRAVO RETARD!

My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made ....

---PREVIOUSLY REFUTED CRAP SNIPPED---​

... which was demonstrably faulty; where you were just wrong, for the same reasons you refuse to acknowledge now.

Did you enjoy your trip down memory lane?

How can you say this is wrong in light of the evidence just presented? You have proven your intellectual dishonesty time and again and now have lost any shred of credibility you were clinging onto for dear life. You are in pathological denial and hopelessly lost in your ignorance. Good luck with that, Almond Joy.

 

[UltimateReality]

Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term code cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."

Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?

Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.

why does this take place ?

It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

Strawman and repetitive irrelevant point. Bravo, Short Bus!!! Again, no one is claiming this. What I did claim was that the DNA molecule contains information that is independent from the molecule itself. This has been proven as the molecule has been used a storage medium for information other than used for protein building. But hey, please don't let me stop you from making your totally irrelevant point to the argument a 10th time, M&M.

 

[ima]

So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel during those 40 days and nights? I bet he had to make sure not to shovel it all to one side of the boat though.

 

[UltimateReality]

--DESPERATE EQUIVOCATING SNIPPED--​

Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term code cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."

Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?

No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.

 

[UltimateReality]

So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel ...?

Just a little more than the amount YWC and I have had to wade through from you, Hollie, Daws, and Loki in this thread.

 

[ima]

If Noah had lions and tigers, which eat meat, did he have extra chickens and goats and stuff? Or did god give him a magic bowl of dog food that never ran dry?

 

[LOki]

Loki, yahweh of misinformation.... Rather than quote your lengthy post that says nothing again as YWC did above, ...

Typical. Both of you superstitious retards are in desperate denial that your precious notion regarding DNA being an "informed" molecule has been shit-canned for such easily and plainly understood reasons.

You really have no substantive rebuttal to offer, so you console your butt-hurt with a dismissive denial of reality.

Yet you still FLATLY REFUSE to acknowledge the distinction made.

BRAVO RETARD!

My other response to your pages of symbols made up of 0's and 1's that communicate absolutely no information is this: Let's return to the original argument I made ....

---PREVIOUSLY REFUTED CRAP SNIPPED---​

... which was demonstrably faulty; where you were just wrong, for the same reasons you refuse to acknowledge now.

Did you enjoy your trip down memory lane?

How can you say this is wrong in light of the evidence just presented?

Evidence? Evidence that DNA can be used in a computer? This has already been addressed!

DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms. It is question-begging to assert "code" in the manner of "a system of letters or digits used for identification or selection purposes"--which presumes a coder--in order to claim "the sequence of nucleotides in DNA or RNA that determines the specific amino acid sequence in the synthesis of proteins" is validly evidence for your "coder."

Not only is the information transferred and decoding to assemble proteins, it is now be revealed that information in the non-coding, i.e., non protein building dna is responsible for the higher processes involving the building of cells into organs and organs into complex organisms.

You are still missing the point, although I have stated it several times (!!!) the information and instructions contained in code form in dna are independent of the dna molecule used to transfer the instructions. Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism. What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

ID Vindicated | Uncommon Descent

Good. Now we know you are thoroughly dissociated from reality. It's like magic! "Dna could contain jibberish or complex instructions to build a complex organism". It doesn't matter which, because with "the magic code of DNA" (being "chemically independent from the informational code it carries"), you could [systematically] replace the bases in DNA with any random reactive chemical, and nothing about "informational code" it carries would change. Good. Just great.

WOW! You're retarded.

It bears repeating to you and your dumbass sidekick: DNA is a molecule. It can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms.There is nothing--LITERALLY NOTHING--in the "evidence" you presented that leads anyone but you to believe that if you encoded all of Shakespeare's work into a DNA computer, and took that DNA and placed it into a living organism that you should expect to get ANY Shakespeare out. Likewise, if you were to pull the entire genetic content of a living organism into a DNA computer, no one but you expects any organism to come out.

The reason for this is ... DNA can be used for computing in a DNA computer, but that's not the same function it has in organisms.

NOBODY is disputing that DNA CAN be used to code in the manner you use the term.

And when you percieve an opportunity to declare my rebuttal to your position a strawman, NOBODY disputes my point that sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

You have proven your intellectual dishonesty time and again and now have lost any shred of credibility you were clinging onto for dear life. You are in pathological denial and hopelessly lost in your ignorance. Good luck with that, Almond Joy.

LOLSOME! Such hilarious irony. You are the definitive example of pathological projection.

What you are demonstrating is your boundless capacity to produce a bushel of oranges, and shamelessly declare that they are apples.

And if I should point out that you have oranges, and NOT apples, you fatuously ignore the obvious point made and declare that I have presented a strawman, because you are not holding a bushel of apples.

Then you declare that I am intellectually dishonest, clinging for dear life on to credibility, and in denial and hopelessly lost in my ignorance because I maintain that your bushel of oranges is not apples.

 

[LOki]

Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?

Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.

why does this take place ?

It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

Strawman and repetitive irrelevant point. Bravo, Short Bus!!! Again, no one is claiming this. What I did claim was that the DNA molecule contains information that is independent from the molecule itself.

Let's just review the record:

What you can't get is that dna as a molecule is chemically independent from the informational code it carries!!

Where's the stawman now?

This has been proven as the molecule has been used a storage medium for information other than used for protein building. But hey, please don't let me stop you from making your totally irrelevant point to the argument a 10th time, M&M.

NOBODY is disputing that DNA CAN be used to code in the manner you use the term.

And when you percieve an opportunity to declare my rebuttal to your position a strawman, NOBODY disputes my point that sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

 

[LOki]

Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term code cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."

Loki do you understand DNA transcription ? why does this take place ?

No, he just doesn't get it. Lack of a formal education has left him to attempt understanding by what he reads on the internet without external guidance to put it into context.

I've had sufficient formal education to disabuse myself of the superstitious notion that the DNA in living things must be an informed molecule based upon the premise that DNA is a symbol for proteins whose information is independent of the chemistry of the DNA molecule.

 

[ima]

If Adam and Eve had 3 sons, how did they have children? With monkeys? Goats? With their mom?

 

[Hollie]

So with all those animals on his boat, how much shit did Noah have to shovel ...?

Just a little more than the amount YWC and I have had to wade through from you, Hollie, Daws, and Loki in this thread.

You give yourself too little credit for the rabidly bible thumping, science loathing agenda you press. Biology, anthropology, geology and the physical science all contribute to the knowledge of earth's history and the biological process of evolution. All of that combined evidence provides the most complete and explainable process that has allowed life to develop on the planet.

It is abundantly clear that the Christian creationists offer nothing in support of their claim to "the gods did it". The Flat Earthers' are left with the entirety of their arguments being attacks on science. Most every page in this thread provides hard science facts and evidence supporting biological evolution. The Flat Earthers' are left to cut and paste falsified "quotes" and bible verses as attacks on science, not support for their arguments. That dynamic truly defines the chasm separating science fact from religious dogma.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anyone who claims that the world was made in 6 days by an invisible superbeing is obviously a moron. Now go vote for Mitt Romney.

Anyone who believes in a myth and their relatives were chimps and that wants to destroy the culture of America go vote for obama.

One of these days I hope you wise up.

Seriously though, anyone who writes that Noah was 600 years old can't count.

How do you know ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your error in refusing to acknowledge the distinction in the the way geneticists use the term code cannot be resolved by insisting upon applying your error of equivocation in the use of the term "code."

Loki do you understand DNA transcription ?

Yes. At least far better than UltimateReality does.

why does this take place ?

It happens because the sequences of nucleotides are not symbols for proteins--nucleotides CANNOT be substituted with other "symbols." The information contained in DNA is DEPENDENT upon the DNA molecule used to transfer the instructions--the information and instructions contained in DNA is INDISSOCIABLE from the chemistry of the DNA molecule. You CANNOT alter the chemistry of the molecule (systematically or otherwise) and expect the protein thus "coded" for.

Dependent, does that not suggest a necessity,do you believe chance produces a necessity ? So what happens if a mutation happens ?