He won't answer it. He's all about dodging and evading.

(May 9, 2018 at 5:37 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 9, 2018 at 5:09 pm)pocaracas Wrote: And this is why so many refuse to engage with creationists... A sad waste of a human being.
It's curious how many of them claim to be some sort of engineer. Never (or rarely) actual scientists studying some detail of nature.... just engineers, seeing an engineered world...
Reminds me of the old saying "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/if_all_yo...ike_a_nail

No, it is just engineers know and understand design better than anyone.  When we see a code which is transported into an assembly line where various parts are placed together depending on the sequence of the code which then determines the component made which is then transported and formed into its functional shape which is then transported to a cell to perform its function, we as engineers see design and manufacturing which we work with and study ostensibly.  It is obviously designed and it is at a nano-scale and more specific and complex then we can dream.  There is really nothing to argue here, DNA is designed.

I'm both an engineer and a scientist. I was an engineer first. Pocaracas is correct. You are wrong.

---

(May 9, 2018 at 9:29 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I said I believe micro-evolution is true.  I believe in change over time.  I already said that so stop the spin.

In that case you believe in Darwinian evolution. Unless you want to propose a mechanism that stops small changes from accumulating over time.

(May 9, 2018 at 5:41 pm)possibletarian Wrote:

(May 9, 2018 at 4:15 pm)CDF47 Wrote: There is absolutely no doubt it is designed, 100 percent for sure.  It is like seeing a 747 jumbo jet and saying I wonder if someone designed and built that or if a tornado dropped it here.  Although DNA is way more complex and specific than a 747 jumbo jet.  I was just using that as an analogy.

Quote:There is absolutely no doubt it is designed,

Actually there is, with the scientists who are best qualified to asses these things.

Quote:It is like seeing a 747 jumbo jet and saying I wonder if someone designed and built that or if a tornado dropped it here.

Actually i have never heard anyone say that, they know it's designed.  They don't claim that a designer put instructions in the molecules of the plane to construct itself, it not being a living organism, i find such comparisons childish and stupid and a terrible analogy.

Quote:Although DNA is way more complex and specific than a 747 jumbo jet.  I was just using that as an analogy.

Complexity does not mean design, it simply means complex.

---

(May 9, 2018 at 4:58 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: 72 pages of mindless waffle and responses?

We need whipped cream.

Stat!

It always comes to some kind of whipping with you

I see Mr Inquisition is so stupid he managed to butcher Hoyle's useless 747 argument.

---

(May 9, 2018 at 9:29 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 9, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Wololo Wrote: Be honest Mr Inquisition, you've studied the crack of my arse more seriously than you've studied any aspect of biology.

If you even made the most cursory examination of the evidence available you'd accept that evolution is true and that the Modern Synthesis is the best model of explanation we have, and a very accurate and predictive one at that.

Creatardism neither explains the current status, fits the available evidence nor can be used to make a prediction about either missing evidence or possible future directions, mainly because it does not seek to describe reality but to try and fit, bend and misshape reality into a straitjacket.

PS I'm also guessing Mr Inquisition has no job, no friends and no activities which take him out of his mother's basement.  Otherwise why would he be parked on this thread 24/7?

I said I believe micro-evolution is true.  I believe in change over time.  I already said that so stop the spin.
.

If "micro" evolution is true, then evolution is true in its entirity, Mr Inquisition. Because your idiotic distinction between micro and macro throws up a false break in a single process. Evolution is simply a series of small changes of an organism over time as dictated in changes to the organism's environment and bounded by the limits imposed by natural selection. Both "micro" and "macro" are this.

---

(May 10, 2018 at 3:03 am)Joods Wrote:

(May 9, 2018 at 5:37 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No, it is just engineers know and understand design better than anyone. 

Way to insult every medical specialist and scientific researcher who has ever done extensive work with DNA and has easily proven your silly argument false. Now you're just trolling. Intentionally being obtuse and willfully refusing to even listen to what's being offered to you in this thread. 

Quote:When we see a code which is transported into an assembly line where various parts are placed together depending on the sequence of the code which then determines the component made which is then transported and formed into its functional shape which is then transported to a cell to perform its function, we as engineers see design and manufacturing which we work with and study ostensibly.   

Longest. Run on. Sentence. Ever. Get a hobby dude. It's clear that accurate knowledge in DNA is not in your wheelhouse. Live beings are not developed in some warehouse, on some assembly line just because you seem to think that DNA is designed. Ya got a bad batch of crack there, buddy. 

Quote:It is obviously designed and it is at a nano-scale and more specific and complex then we can dream.  There is really nothing to argue here, DNA is designed.

For the 80 bazillionth time, NO it isn't. And you have clearly and repeatedly FAILED to represent any merits to your argument, successfully. Repeating your beliefs doesn't make them true. It simply means you are a broken record with no means of moving any discussion forward. 

Trollers gonna troll, troll, troll, troll.

Frankly, I reckon Mr Inquisition is lying about his engineering knowledge too.

(May 8, 2018 at 5:24 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(May 8, 2018 at 3:05 am)CDF47 Wrote: You guys can try to dance around the argument all you want but the questions remain the same.  You can't even begin to explain where the information bearing properties of DNA come from.  Everything you come up with is a joke and not scientific.

Tell me... what does it matter to you?

If a god somehow willed all this into creation or not, what difference does it make if we believe it to be so or not?
Clearly, that god is not bothering to come forward and actually tell us unequivocally that he's responsible for this all, so I guess he's not interested in having us properly aware of that fact.
If that god doesn't want us to acknowledge his act of creation, why do you (and others like you) come here and work against god's will?
Why do you bring it upon yourself to do the work of god?
Why do you think god requires you to speak for him?

A bit presumptuous, if you ask me...

Still no answer to any of these questions.
It is telling that you cower away from sharing your thought process... if there is any...

Why talk about DNA if even a rock is evidence of design?

What is something that is not designed, for us to compare to? What would it be like?

I know everyone has already asked these questions, but here's one more post to try and get answers.

The problem is, this guy isn't asking questions because he wants an answer. He's asking them assuming there is no answer, so he can ignore anything people say if it's inconvenient.

Quote:Biased. Any scientist or engineer that has a basic understanding of how DNA works should believe it was designed. If not, they should have their degrees burnt and all licenses revoked.

So you have no actual proof he's biased . Aside from the fact like scientific community he does not buy your bullshit . And no actual criticism of his position other the destopic idea he should be silenced for going with the science . And yes your arguments are personal credulity and ignorance .

---

Quote:I said I believe micro-evolution is true.  I believe in change over time.  I already said that so stop the spin.

Their is no such thing . There is evolution . So your the only one here push creationist spin .

Something I posted on TTA a while back:

When presented with the evidence, creationists will admit to believing in so-called 'microevolution' but will deny 'macroevolution'.  They then refuse to acknowledge that by doing so they actually believe in evolution.

You can then ask them repeatedly what mechanism is in place to stop a series of small changes from accumulating and they will be unable to answer it.

But they get away with it in their minds (no one else's) because they basically are asking for something impossible. Anything that can be observed evolving is micro-evolution according to them. So they basically demand us to present them with observations (not evidence) of 'macro-evolution'. In other words they demand that we present them with something that they can observe changing themselves which takes longer than a human life.

(They ignore observable evidence such as fossil records etc). But there are examples all around us that they cannot deny. Languages evolve all the time using very small steps. Accents become dialects which become different languages. If you learn German, French, Spanish, Italian for example, you'll see many different similarities between the languages. If you learn an oriental language you will see that it is completely different.

e.g.

the elephant sits in the house
der Elefant sitzt im Haus
象は家に座っています (I'm trusting google translate on this one)

Or you can look at how one language changes over time.

https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/diagram_4English.html



Even just from the same language 600 years ago ...

https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~chaucer/t...lt-par.htm

Quote:3109         Whan that the Knyght had thus his tale ytoold,
3110         In al the route nas ther yong ne oold
3111         That he ne seyde it was a noble storie
3112         And worthy for to drawen to memorie,
3113         And namely the gentils everichon.
3114         Oure Hooste lough and swoor, "So moot I gon,
3115         This gooth aright; unbokeled is the male.
3116         Lat se now who shal telle another tale;
3117         For trewely the game is wel bigonne.

Quote:3109         When the Knight had thus told his tale,
3110         In all the company there was no one young nor old
3111         Who did not say it was a noble story
3112         And worthy to draw into memory,
3113         And especially the gentlefolk every one.
3114         Our Host laughed and swore, "As I may move about (I swear),
3115         This goes well; the bag is opened.
3116         Let's see now who shall tell another tale;
3117         For truly the game is well begun.

(May 9, 2018 at 3:47 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 9, 2018 at 2:54 am)Tizheruk Wrote: No you have not .You have simply repeated empty ID talking points feed to you by ID propagandists . Ignore every response by simply restating the talking point as if it had not been shown in error . Then resort to fallacious reasoning with insistence you made a point when you didn't .And round and round you go .

---

Science Magazine reviewer and Author and Chair in Paleontology, Director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and Chair of the Berkeley Natural History Museums  Charles R. Marshall  is a taking head ?. Lol your sir are delusional . But of course your going to say he's biased or some shit you have to to preserve the lie . A wonder how you'll dismiss the dozens of other negative reviews it got ?Oh wait 





Oh and before you go posting Meyers response in desperate hopes of making the scary facts go away . He never deals with Marshall's main argument and instead attacks minor details. Typical Meyers .

Biased.  Any scientist or engineer that has a basic understanding of how DNA works should believe it was designed.  If not, they should have their degrees burnt and all licenses revoked.

I am engineer who understands how DNA works so I know for a fact that you are talking superstitious bollocks.

---

(May 9, 2018 at 4:15 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 9, 2018 at 4:12 pm)possibletarian Wrote: The argument is generally not against the nature of D.N.A.  But against the irrational attachment of intelligence to it, Nothing you have posted here provides evidence of that link.

Neither do the scientific community (the ones most able to know) attach any form of god or intelligence to it.

There is absolutely no doubt it is designed, 100 percent for sure.  It is like seeing a 747 jumbo jet and saying I wonder if someone designed and built that or if a tornado dropped it here.  Although DNA is way more complex and specific than a 747 jumbo jet.  I was just using that as an analogy.

Order arises from disorder all the time. Even your tornado is an example of that.

(May 10, 2018 at 6:54 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Order arises from disorder all the time. Even your tornado is an example of that.

Classic example being ice crystals such as snow.

Or does  CDF47 think that the ice that has built up in his freezer was also designed?

(May 10, 2018 at 7:01 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(May 10, 2018 at 6:54 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Order arises from disorder all the time. Even your tornado is an example of that.

Classic example being ice crystals such as snow.

Or does  CDF47 think that the ice that has built up in his freezer was also designed?

Now watch him scream "but that's only shannon information  it doesn't count because my intelligent puppet masters says so"