(November 5, 2018 at 11:58 am)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 11:49 am)CDF47 Wrote: Look up the words complex, functional, and information and put it together.

Um .... no. You already did that and it came up with a big nothing.
You fail again. If you yourself cannot specify EXACTLY how this definition applies to your theory, you have no theory,
and the fact that you can't answer questions, set boundaries, or even discuss the meanings of the words, discuss what is included, and what is excluded,
means ... all you have is hot air.

BTW .... Lee Strobel ..... LMAO. A journalist who interviewed people friendly to his own view. I think we all see the delusional little world you live in.
How about read "The Case Against The Case For Christ". LOL. He's nothing but an ignoramus, (not unlike you) who has NO EXPERTISE in the field he dabbles in as an amateur.  
I think he's conned Liberty U into actually paying him for his garbage.
No questions being answered ... why is that ? Can't Jebus send in the smart ones ?

How RNA may have spontaneously formed has been demonstrated in the lab.
https://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists...r-rna.html

All you have is a "god of the gap" argument, that in general, science does not buy.

No serious person can argue against the information argument.  It is too strong of a case for a Creator.

Of course, try to attack the source of the book and movie.

Lazy dude.

(November 5, 2018 at 12:25 pm)sdelsolray Wrote: Lazy dude.

How so?

(November 5, 2018 at 12:15 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 11:58 am)Bucky Ball Wrote: Um .... no. You already did that and it came up with a big nothing.
You fail again. If you yourself cannot specify EXACTLY how this definition applies to your theory, you have no theory,
and the fact that you can't answer questions, set boundaries, or even discuss the meanings of the words, discuss what is included, and what is excluded,
means ... all you have is hot air.

BTW .... Lee Strobel ..... LMAO. A journalist who interviewed people friendly to his own view. I think we all see the delusional little world you live in.
How about read "The Case Against The Case For Christ". LOL. He's nothing but an ignoramus, (not unlike you) who has NO EXPERTISE in the field he dabbles in as an amateur.  
I think he's conned Liberty U into actually paying him for his garbage.
No questions being answered ... why is that ? Can't Jebus send in the smart ones ?

How RNA may have spontaneously formed has been demonstrated in the lab.
https://phys.org/news/2013-12-scientists...r-rna.html

All you have is a "god of the gap" argument, that in general, science does not buy.

No serious person can argue against the information argument.  It is too strong of a case for a Creator.

Of course, try to attack the source of the book and movie.

Nothing but your unsupported opinion.
In saying "no serious person" YOU are doing the very thing you whine about.
Scientists in general do not buy this crap, therefore you are saying that most scientists are not serious. (LOL)

YOU cannot support the information argument ... all you can do is make unsupported assertions about it, and you are unable to answer questions about it, to clarify it.
It's not even an argument. It's an attempted argument based on equivocating the word "information" ... when in fact it's all nothing but chemistry, (which neither you nor Strobel understand ... even the basics of). Base pairs are not "information".

The Case for A Creator has been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat...a-creator/

You think we were all born yesterday ?

(November 5, 2018 at 1:04 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 12:15 pm)CDF47 Wrote: No serious person can argue against the information argument.  It is too strong of a case for a Creator.

Of course, try to attack the source of the book and movie.

Nothing but your unsupported opinion.
In saying "no serious person" YOU are doing the very thing you whine about.
Scientists in general do not buy this crap, therefore you are saying that most scientists are not serious. (LOL)

YOU cannot support the information argument ... all you can do is make unsupported assertions about it, and you are unable to answer questions about it, to clarify it.
It's not even an argument. It's an attempted argument based on equivocating the word "information" ... when in fact it's all nothing but chemistry, (which neither you nor Strobel understand ... even the basics of). Base pairs are not "information".

The Case for A Creator has been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat...a-creator/

You think we were all born yesterday ?

It is not just the chemistry as you put it.  It doesn't matter what the material is.  What matters is the order of the information (which encodes for proteins).  Francis Crick figured this out 61 years ago in 1957.  DNA was discovered in 1953 and the information was determined to be functional like this in 1957.  Francis Crick was a cryptographer and he cracked the greatest code of all.

(November 5, 2018 at 1:28 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 1:04 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Nothing but your unsupported opinion.
In saying "no serious person" YOU are doing the very thing you whine about.
Scientists in general do not buy this crap, therefore you are saying that most scientists are not serious. (LOL)

YOU cannot support the information argument ... all you can do is make unsupported assertions about it, and you are unable to answer questions about it, to clarify it.
It's not even an argument. It's an attempted argument based on equivocating the word "information" ... when in fact it's all nothing but chemistry, (which neither you nor Strobel understand ... even the basics of). Base pairs are not "information".

The Case for A Creator has been thoroughly debunked.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat...a-creator/

You think we were all born yesterday ?

It is not just the chemistry as you put it.  It doesn't matter what the material is.  What matters is the order of the information (which encodes for proteins).  Francis and Crick figured this out 61 years ago in 1957.  DNA was discovered in 1953 and the information was determined to be functional like this in 1957.

It is all only chemistry. The reason the base pairs are attracted is nothing but opposite charged particles, (as in all of chemistry, of which you are totally ignorant), AND that is the reason the proteins are formed on the template. It matters 110 % "what the material is" They are charged atomic particles .... your ignorance is astounding. No wonder you are left to the likes of Lee Strobel to find your non-answers. The order of the base pairs does matter, (duh), but only chemically. It's the REASON why small defects in the chemistry an have such profound effects on health. You *really* need a science class, (or 3).

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/a...etter-time

https://science-explained.com/theory/dna...d-protein/

(November 5, 2018 at 1:28 pm)CDF47 Wrote: It is not just the chemistry as you put it.  It doesn't matter what the material is.  What matters is the order of the information (which encodes for proteins).  Francis and Crick figured this out 61 years ago in 1957.  DNA was discovered in 1953 and the information was determined to be functional like this in 1957.

Here is a theory that has some evidence for it explaining one possible evolution of DNA. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world

Do you have anything similar I want.


How your god coded DNA information?
What process did it use?
Where did it get the materials?
What evidence do you have to support the above?

What I think is that you have nothing but baseless assertions, but ones that enable you to still cling to your bronze age myths and still feel somehow part of the modern world.

(November 5, 2018 at 1:47 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 1:28 pm)CDF47 Wrote: It is not just the chemistry as you put it.  It doesn't matter what the material is.  What matters is the order of the information (which encodes for proteins).  Francis and Crick figured this out 61 years ago in 1957.  DNA was discovered in 1953 and the information was determined to be functional like this in 1957.

It is all only chemistry. The reason the base pairs are attracted is nothing but opposite charged particles, (as in all of chemistry, of which you are totally ignorant), AND that is the reason the proteins are formed on the template. It matters 110 % "what the material is" They are charged atomic particles .... your ignorance is astounding. No wonder you are left to the likes of Lee Strobel to find your non-answers. The order of the base pairs does matter, (duh), but only chemically. It's the REASON why small defects in the chemistry an have such profound effects on health. You *really* need a science class, (or 3).

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/a...etter-time

What matters is the order of the information which encodes for proteins which is true.  It is not the material type that encodes for proteins.

(November 5, 2018 at 1:49 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 1:47 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: It is all only chemistry. The reason the base pairs are attracted is nothing but opposite charged particles, (as in all of chemistry, of which you are totally ignorant), AND that is the reason the proteins are formed on the template. It matters 110 % "what the material is" They are charged atomic particles .... your ignorance is astounding. No wonder you are left to the likes of Lee Strobel to find your non-answers. The order of the base pairs does matter, (duh), but only chemically. It's the REASON why small defects in the chemistry an have such profound effects on health. You *really* need a science class, (or 3).

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/a...etter-time

What matters is the order of the information which encodes for proteins which is true.  It is not the material type that encodes for proteins.

You're dead wrong. You think DNA would work without amino acids ? LMAO .... you are SO unbelievably ignorant of all this. Proteins are ONLY made of amino acids. (and YOU have not one shred of evidence any protein is made of anything else)  ... NOTHING.
http://whoami.sciencemuseum.org.uk/whoam...einsmadeof

We do continue to see the preposterous level of your total ignorance.

The charges on the histones are attracted to the CHEMICAL order of the DNA.
https://socratic.org/questions/why-do-hi...tly-to-dna

PLEASE. Go get an education.
Stop making a fool of yourself.

(November 5, 2018 at 2:02 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(November 5, 2018 at 1:49 pm)CDF47 Wrote: What matters is the order of the information which encodes for proteins which is true.  It is not the material type that encodes for proteins.

You're dead wrong. You think DNA would work without amino acids ? LMAO .... you are SO unbelievably ignorant of all this. Proteins are ONLY made of amino acids. (and YOU have not one shred of evidence any protein is made of anything else)  ... NOTHING.
http://whoami.sciencemuseum.org.uk/whoam...einsmadeof

We do continue to see the preposterous level of your total ignorance.

The charges on the histones are attracted to the CHEMICAL order of the DNA.
https://socratic.org/questions/why-do-hi...tly-to-dna

PLEASE. Go get an education.
Stop making a fool of yourself.

I know that it encodes the order of amino acid chains and the length.  I meant the material type of the chemicals in the DNA molecule.