76
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 01:11 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:

Second, you are simply wrong about how nucleic acids assemble in DNA. The only way they do form is randomly.

So you inherited none of the DNA from your parents and are instead just a random jumble of DNA. That is interesting. That would mean any random jumble of DNA can produce a human. I don't think that is quite how it works but if you want to claim it, OK.


Or perhaps you meant you are a mirror of an RNA strand... <snort>
Quote:
That is just a mirror image of the information in the primary RNA strand. If you cannot defend that last bit of bullshit I'm done with you.

Although I have to admit I am looking forward to your defense of that last bit of bullshit about RNA since I see no reason to defend it.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 01:21 pm
@FBM,
Quote:
Link to some background on "Specified Information"?
I dont have any specific links but you can find the information about specified information and specified complexity in a bio or any site that contains BS by WILLIAM DEMBSKI
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 01:23 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
and you are ignorant of so much beauty and history of life.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 01:25 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
4 billion years available of earth's existence.
So you are a "day-age" Creationist eh?
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 01:30 pm
@parados,
Quote:
That is just a mirror image of the information in the primary RNA strand. If you cannot defend that last bit of bullshit I'm done with you.

Although I have to admit I am looking forward to your defense of that last bit of bullshit about RNA since I see no reason to defend it.


The subject was abiogenesis, not human reproduction.

And since you can neither follow the logic of the thread or defend your nonsense, I'm done with you.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 02:10 pm
@Leadfoot,
Of course you are done with me. You post **** and I point out it is ****.

Notice how you said "RNA strand" and don't even understand what you got wrong?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 03:19 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
So you are a "day-age" Creationist eh?

There you go with those 'code words'!
'Creationist' is atheist code for "ignorant superstitious idiot"!
Mr. Green
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 03:55 pm
@Leadfoot,
a Creationist isnt an idiot, they are believers of a worldview that is faith based that is convinced of a Creator Intelligence.(The term is entirely yours)

I find it fascinating how such beliefs are continued even as evidence to the contrary keeps piling up.

Your discussions with parados complement that faith based worldview. You seem to want to assert that genomics is "proof positive" of a creator intelligence when we can see human environment derived species result from isolation by adapting to chemical environments or dams . Apparently the evolved species have developed that are derivative of the original founder species and that phenotypic and genotypic adjustments in the evolved species are apparently derived only through adaptation/ selection to a clearly man made environmental condition.

One thing Im kind of pissed at is howCreationists and IDers will sink to lying and fraudulent representations of evidence that just does not exist (Like the finding of C14 in cretaceous dinosaur fossil tissues, or "human" footprint in the strata that contain fossil tracks of duckbill dinosaurs).
Im not equating that kind of habit with you, its more of an explanation why I dont have much patience with the entire Creation/ID gang

Frank Apisa
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 04:37 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:


I find it fascinating how such beliefs are continued even as evidence to the contrary keeps piling up.


There is "evidence to the contrary???"

I was not aware of that.

What is the "evidence" that no gods exist?

What is the "evidence" that no gods were involved in how evolution occurred on planet Earth?


farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 06:18 pm
@Frank Apisa,
go peddle your wares elsewhere. You are getting a bit tiring with your mantra. You are like leadfeet where you both are stuck in one groove unable to cobble up any critical thinking
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 07:59 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Link to some background on "Specified Information"?
I dont have any specific links but you can find the information about specified information and specified complexity in a bio or any site that contains BS by WILLIAM DEMBSKI


Gracias. I googled around and came up with "specified complexity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 08:01 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
@Leadfoot,
You said that you make your living in a field of science, but you seem to be ignorant of some basics that others here are acutely aware of. What gives here? Please explain.

Specify the basics that you accuse me of being ignorant of.


Looks like farmerman and parados are doing a good enough job of that.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 08:34 pm
@FBM,
Quote:

Looks like farmerman and parados are doing a good enough job of that.


Naw, just bored with them. They are lousy dancers.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 08:39 pm
@Leadfoot,
They're running rings around you. Denialism is a cheap trick. Anybody can do that. If you can imagine an invisible friend in the sky that runs the universe, you can imagine that you're holding your own in the debate.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 08:43 pm
@FBM,
Boring.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 08:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
But let's look at how Genesis has contradictions with current scientific views.

Genesis says the earth was formed before there was light.
Science says the sun was formed before the earth.
Makes sense if written from what was visable to an observer on earth
parados wrote:
Genesis says the plants were created before the stars were.
Science says stars existed before our sun and earth were created..
Likewise: Makes sense if written from an observer on earth.
parados wrote:
Of course, we haven't even touched on the fact that Genesis says the total of creation happened in 6 days.
Many people have that erroneous understanding. Genesis 2:4 lumps all the first 6 days into 1, an indication that days were not 24 hour literal days. Additionally, the Hebrew word translated here as 'day' is 'yom', indicates a period of time much as in the expression 'my grandfathers day'. The fact that the seventh day has not been recorded as having ended is further evidence that creation was more than a 168 hour event.

If you take the time to really read and study the Bible, it is amazing what you may learn.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 09:06 pm
@neologist,
what "seems reasonable" is not good science but thats what the Creationists say that the Bible is. So its a huge contradiction of either text or context.

Your just going on about "day-age Creationism"

I notice how fashionable it is among Creationists and IDers to deny "Young Earth Creationism"(YEC). I guess science is getting a bit too compelling.

As I recall, you changed your worldview with your "graduation" from YECKY ism
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 09:06 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Boring.


QED.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 09:08 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
If you take the time to really read and study the Bible, it is amazing what you may learn
Its entertaining, its a lesson on the dawn of morality, ITS certainly NOT science
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Aug, 2015 09:12 pm
Studying the Bible in university is what convinced me it was almost certainly made up. I was a firm believer before that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/21/2019 at 09:25:48