If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[ding]

Did God use a computer to write this code?

Tell me how God wrote this code?

What material did he start with? How did he put the code into it?

Good questions actually, which are being studied.

Funny how schizophrenics demand to know everything about everything but know nothing

No take your pills

For the record it is not known how DNA came to be, but it is known that only intelligence creates codes

You just admitted you don’t know.

I win again.

Actually you do not know how DNA formed either, your belief that you do makes you mentally incompetent.

What I have said is that code can not write itself you are so ignorant as to claim that the genetic code is not a code.

So tell us what is it professor

We need to know

PS what did u win

I won your pride.

I keep telling you that no code was written. DNA is effectively a set of instructions that exists as a part of life itself. The laws of nature are also a set of instructions. Neither set of instructions are written instructions.

You accept that intelligence is required for DNA to exist but reject that intelligence is required for the laws of nature to exist. That’s an indefensible position.

Again in nature electrical charges are the bonds between molecules, DNA is completely different. Why cant you show the codes that nature creates?

You seem to believe that whatever you say is real, its not

The laws of nature which control the behaviors of matter are not electrical charges. They are effectively instructions.

 

[Frannie]

Good questions actually, which are being studied.

Funny how schizophrenics demand to know everything about everything but know nothing

No take your pills

For the record it is not known how DNA came to be, but it is known that only intelligence creates codes

You just admitted you don’t know.

I win again.

Actually you do not know how DNA formed either, your belief that you do makes you mentally incompetent.

What I have said is that code can not write itself you are so ignorant as to claim that the genetic code is not a code.

So tell us what is it professor

We need to know

PS what did u win

I won your pride.

I keep telling you that no code was written. DNA is effectively a set of instructions that exists as a part of life itself. The laws of nature are also a set of instructions. Neither set of instructions are written instructions.

You accept that intelligence is required for DNA to exist but reject that intelligence is required for the laws of nature to exist. That’s an indefensible position.

Again in nature electrical charges are the bonds between molecules, DNA is completely different. Why cant you show the codes that nature creates?

You seem to believe that whatever you say is real, its not

The laws of nature which control the behaviors of matter are not electrical charges. They are effectively instructions.

Actually protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged. There are no instructions in water molecules, only in the DNA molecules.

Now take your meds

 

[ding]

You just admitted you don’t know.

I win again.

Actually you do not know how DNA formed either, your belief that you do makes you mentally incompetent.

What I have said is that code can not write itself you are so ignorant as to claim that the genetic code is not a code.

So tell us what is it professor

We need to know

PS what did u win

I won your pride.

I keep telling you that no code was written. DNA is effectively a set of instructions that exists as a part of life itself. The laws of nature are also a set of instructions. Neither set of instructions are written instructions.

You accept that intelligence is required for DNA to exist but reject that intelligence is required for the laws of nature to exist. That’s an indefensible position.

Again in nature electrical charges are the bonds between molecules, DNA is completely different. Why cant you show the codes that nature creates?

You seem to believe that whatever you say is real, its not

The laws of nature which control the behaviors of matter are not electrical charges. They are effectively instructions.

Actually protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged. There are no instructions in water molecules, only in the DNA molecules.

Now take your meds

Doesn’t matter. That has nothing to do with the fact that instructions are contained within the very fabric of living things. Those instructions control the development of living things. And that that relationship is no different for the laws of nature and all things; both living and inanimate.

So if you believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for living things, you must also believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for all things, one of which is DNA

#winning.

 

[Frannie]

Actually you do not know how DNA formed either, your belief that you do makes you mentally incompetent.

What I have said is that code can not write itself you are so ignorant as to claim that the genetic code is not a code.

So tell us what is it professor

We need to know

PS what did u win

I won your pride.

I keep telling you that no code was written. DNA is effectively a set of instructions that exists as a part of life itself. The laws of nature are also a set of instructions. Neither set of instructions are written instructions.

You accept that intelligence is required for DNA to exist but reject that intelligence is required for the laws of nature to exist. That’s an indefensible position.

Again in nature electrical charges are the bonds between molecules, DNA is completely different. Why cant you show the codes that nature creates?

You seem to believe that whatever you say is real, its not

The laws of nature which control the behaviors of matter are not electrical charges. They are effectively instructions.

Actually protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged. There are no instructions in water molecules, only in the DNA molecules.

Now take your meds

Doesn’t matter. That has nothing to do with the fact that instructions are contained within the very fabric of living things. Those instructions control the development of living things. And that that relationship is no different for the laws of nature and all things; both living and inanimate.

So if you believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for living things, you must also believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for all things, one of which is DNA

#winning.

Dude those instructions in living things are termed the genetic CODE.

Is it fun being schitzo

 

[ding]

I won your pride.

I keep telling you that no code was written. DNA is effectively a set of instructions that exists as a part of life itself. The laws of nature are also a set of instructions. Neither set of instructions are written instructions.

You accept that intelligence is required for DNA to exist but reject that intelligence is required for the laws of nature to exist. That’s an indefensible position.

Again in nature electrical charges are the bonds between molecules, DNA is completely different. Why cant you show the codes that nature creates?

You seem to believe that whatever you say is real, its not

The laws of nature which control the behaviors of matter are not electrical charges. They are effectively instructions.

Actually protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged. There are no instructions in water molecules, only in the DNA molecules.

Now take your meds

Doesn’t matter. That has nothing to do with the fact that instructions are contained within the very fabric of living things. Those instructions control the development of living things. And that that relationship is no different for the laws of nature and all things; both living and inanimate.

So if you believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for living things, you must also believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for all things, one of which is DNA

#winning.

Dude those instructions in living things are termed the genetic CODE.

Is it fun being schitzo

And instructions for all things are termed the laws of nature. What’s your point?

 

[Frannie]

Again in nature electrical charges are the bonds between molecules, DNA is completely different. Why cant you show the codes that nature creates?

You seem to believe that whatever you say is real, its not

The laws of nature which control the behaviors of matter are not electrical charges. They are effectively instructions.

Actually protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged. There are no instructions in water molecules, only in the DNA molecules.

Now take your meds

Doesn’t matter. That has nothing to do with the fact that instructions are contained within the very fabric of living things. Those instructions control the development of living things. And that that relationship is no different for the laws of nature and all things; both living and inanimate.

So if you believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for living things, you must also believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for all things, one of which is DNA

#winning.

Dude those instructions in living things are termed the genetic CODE.

Is it fun being schitzo

And instructions for all things are termed the laws of nature. What’s your point?

Nature has no laws, nature has properties determined principally by charge, weight and the effect of gravity on the preceding. But you keep babbling that genetics is not a code because you are the only one who does not know that DNA is a code. Minus banjo boy that is

 

[ding]

The laws of nature which control the behaviors of matter are not electrical charges. They are effectively instructions.

Actually protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged. There are no instructions in water molecules, only in the DNA molecules.

Now take your meds

Doesn’t matter. That has nothing to do with the fact that instructions are contained within the very fabric of living things. Those instructions control the development of living things. And that that relationship is no different for the laws of nature and all things; both living and inanimate.

So if you believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for living things, you must also believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for all things, one of which is DNA

#winning.

Dude those instructions in living things are termed the genetic CODE.

Is it fun being schitzo

And instructions for all things are termed the laws of nature. What’s your point?

Nature has no laws, nature has properties determined principally by charge, weight and the effect of gravity on the preceding. But you keep babbling that genetics is not a code because you are the only one who does not know that DNA is a code. Minus banjo boy that is

Newton and Einstein's Major Laws of Physics Help Explain the Universe

The Three Laws of Thermodynamics | Introduction to Chemistry

Atom - The laws of quantum mechanics

 

[ding]

The laws of nature which control the behaviors of matter are not electrical charges. They are effectively instructions.

Actually protons are positively charged and electrons are negatively charged. There are no instructions in water molecules, only in the DNA molecules.

Now take your meds

Doesn’t matter. That has nothing to do with the fact that instructions are contained within the very fabric of living things. Those instructions control the development of living things. And that that relationship is no different for the laws of nature and all things; both living and inanimate.

So if you believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for living things, you must also believe intelligence is required to code the instructions for all things, one of which is DNA

#winning.

Dude those instructions in living things are termed the genetic CODE.

Is it fun being schitzo

And instructions for all things are termed the laws of nature. What’s your point?

Nature has no laws, nature has properties determined principally by charge, weight and the effect of gravity on the preceding. But you keep babbling that genetics is not a code because you are the only one who does not know that DNA is a code. Minus banjo boy that is

You mean properties that determine how everything behaves? Sounds like properties are instructions.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

What biologist says “evolution is based entirely upon random mutations where the beneficial mutations are the cause of change over long periods of time, aka Darwinism”?
That statement reflects a simplistic lack of understanding about how biological evolution works.

Mutations & gene expressions (genetics & epigenetics) provide variability of DNA structures that may or may not be passed on to the next generation via Darwin’s “natural selection” or “unnatural cultural selection”.

Evolution selects “successful” genomes whose “behavior” adapts well enough to procreate.
I believe NATURE drives evolution, not a simplistic notion about an unknown/undefined “God”.
However, i am agnostic about original creation.
I am honest about my ignorance.

How about the professors at Berzerkely who wrote this
Mutations are random

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

You are starting to learn about SOME basics of evolutionary principles!
Yes, mutations are random, and they are related to DNA variability, not “how useful that mutation would be”.
Darwin’s “natural selection” & other gene favorable adaptations (incl learned behavior) will decide the genomes of future generations.

Sorry kid, epigenetics has nothing to do with mutations, but selective gene expression. This discussion is over your head by a few lightyears

Ha ha, what a deflection.
Who said epigenetics is about mutations? YOU quoted that “Bezerkeley” mutation text, not me.
Modification of gene expression (epigenetics) is a part of evolutionary processes.
As others have noticed, your science education is sorely lacking.

As known epigenetics is temporary and as such does not influence evolution.

Now you are hundreds of light years behind.

As FFI already pointed out ...
Of course epigenetics DOES influence evolution, which selects expressed traits for survival & propagation!

The other replies by FFI are also valid.
Your ignorance of science is laughable, especially since you actually think you know something about it beyond cut and pasting from your sources.

 

[ViewFromAbove]

It seems to me that everyone should be agnostic, because I have not seen any evidence otherwise.

 

[james bond]

As FFI already pointed out ...
Of course epigenetics DOES influence evolution, which selects expressed traits for survival & propagation!

The other replies by FFI are also valid.
Your ignorance of science is laughable, especially since you actually think you know something about it beyond cut and pasting from your sources.

That's what's wrong with agnosticism. They just refer to other people's opinions, arguments, whatever. They're spineless cowards.

 

[Hollie]

As FFI already pointed out ...
Of course epigenetics DOES influence evolution, which selects expressed traits for survival & propagation!

The other replies by FFI are also valid.
Your ignorance of science is laughable, especially since you actually think you know something about it beyond cut and pasting from your sources.

That's what's wrong with agnosticism. They just refer to other people's opinions, arguments, whatever. They're spineless cowards.

I’m never surprised at how angry and self-hating religious extremists are.

Agnostics don’t refer to other people’s opinions. That makes no sense. Agnosticism is a rejection of of belief in one or more of the various gods asserted by various cultures.

The spineless cowards are more likely the people who simply, mindlessly and without any real thought or consideration did nothing but accept the gods that were a part of the geographic area where they were born.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Is it hard to tell the difference between a living organism and inanimate matter? No.

Of course it is. We often need lots of equipment and chemicals and education to do it. For thousands of years, our first and worst attempt at philosophy and science -- religion -- did not identify pathogens, or even coral as living creatures. We had to invent something better and apply our best minds to the task. Still today people study and work their entire lives to identify possibly one virus or eukaryote in their lifetimes. So no, you're ass backwards wrong.

And even if you were right, you're still wrong, because you are only speaking from objects and life you know about.

So, even when granted your incorrect premise, you're still wrong. That should serve to make you understand how wrong you are.

Also, we would have had a very hard time indeed deciding what was the FIRST life, if we could have monitored abiogenesis.

So, basically, you're wrong on every level possible.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Belief is based on reasoning.

No it isn't. A christian child believes in jesus because he is told to do so. And most christian adults believe in jesus because they were told to do so as a child.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Why do you believe that the most complicated known code in the Universe formed itself?

"Formed itself"

Very stupid choice of words. I told you this already. It was formed by selective pressures that follow physical laws.

Please refrain from making this elementary and embarrassing error again.

Furthermore, you only try to distinguish it as a "code" because that is an often used convention, not because you understand anything about it. Just as a gene can "code" for eye color, our Earth's spinning iron core surrounded by liquid "codes" for a magnetic field and plate techtonics. And that code contains more molecules than DNA on the order of billions, so is therefore billions of times more complicated than DNA.

Again...have you ever posted ANYTHING on ANY of this that is correct?

 

[ding]

Is it hard to tell the difference between a living organism and inanimate matter? No.

Of course it is. We often need lots of equipment and chemicals and education to do it. For thousands of years, our first and worst attempt at philosophy and science -- religion -- did not identify pathogens, or even coral as living creatures. We had to invent something better and apply our best minds to the task. Still today people study and work their entire lives to identify possibly one virus or eukaryote in their lifetimes. So no, you're ass backwards wrong.

And even if you were right, you're still wrong, because you are only speaking from objects and life you know about.

So, even when granted your incorrect premise, you're still wrong. That should serve to make you understand how wrong you are.

Also, we would have had a very hard time indeed deciding what was the FIRST life, if we could have monitored abiogenesis.

So, basically, you're wrong on every level possible.

I disagree. Living things have attributes that non-living things don’t. It’s not that hard to tell the difference. All you have to do is go down the list.

 

[Meriweather]

No it isn't. A christian child believes in jesus because he is told to do so. And most christian adults believe in jesus because they were told to do so as a child.

Were you taught religious beliefs by a child?

 

[Jackson]

I have no problem with being an agnostic. Sometimes that is just part of the procedure to determining if you have faith or you do not.

A "fantasy" is that all the answers to our questions are at hand. We were given a manual for a new car when we bought one and a manual was provided when we were born.

Both manuals supply the answers to the life of the automobile and indeed for us to act and believe in the course of our lives. One is called the Owners Manual, the other the Bible. In some cultures, it may have another title, That just may be because the Mountain could have different names and the paths are many to the mountain top.

Dishonesty? No. Not intended dishonesty. Just becoming wiser the longer we exist.

 

[Jackson]

No it isn't. A christian child believes in jesus because he is told to do so. And most christian adults believe in jesus because they were told to do so as a child.

Were you taught religious beliefs by a child?

You didn't ask me, but I never went to church as a child and bought a Bible when I was a teenager with my babysitting money. I hid it under my bed so my parents wouldn'tknow about it.
I finally asked a friend who Jesus was and what the red print meant and if God and Jesus were the same person. I was 21 when I found someone I didn't think would belittle me. God must have smiled that I wasn't coerced into believing but I came to him after He came to me.

 

[Jackson]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

Do you find you have to judge others and their beliefs when you didn't have the same experiences they did?