Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Just speculation but it fits the narrative in the garden story pretty good.
That death sentence they got could be the source of cellular apoptosis.
And the major increase in sweat required to feed ourselves, weed the garden, fight off bugs and other pests - all that could be reversed with a little genetic tinkering. Once we get good enough at it anyway.
Or maybe the original designer will do it for us before we get that far.

And then there’s that verse that goes: 'We struggle not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities…etc.'. Who knows what mischief they might be up to.

M'kay.


Trinucleotide repeat disorders aren't a part of normal apoptosis, of which huntingtin protein plays an antiapoptosis role. The point of my post was to use examples of instances of bad "LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc. of DNA," such as trinucleotide repeat disorders, to contradict your assertions that "biological life had to be designed," and "it is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design," and "the odds are not what I would call possible," and "what cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by yet another different protein in order to make more proteins" and "it is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'," and this pièce de résistance "I only know that the design paradigm that ALL biological life utilizes was the result of an intelligent designer."

You've merely pivoted to avoid my counterargument.

The last two posts to the thread vanished.

One of them was mine. I apologize for going over the top.

If one was yours more than two vanished

Ghost posts? *shudders*

The thread's having a temporary pause. Then the same retreads of arguments will resume with nothing different being offered.

A common enough 'effect' here on a2k. To everyone's relief, I'm sure, I try to duck out when I see the same arguments or new information.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
Some good reads here.

You know the main page is subject to change, right?

https://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
Here's InfoGalactic's main page. I suspect they'll have different articles tomorrow.

Btw, I wouldn't touch RationalWiki with a ten-foot pole. They are dishonest and pretentious as hell. Sure call yourselves Rational if you want.

But here's a nice article cited by InfoGalactic...
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/aaron-rodgers-science-cant-be-questioned-propaganda

That's right, in the pursuit of this...

They have failed to establish that actual science involves questioning science.