(December 23, 2018 at 12:15 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote:

(December 22, 2018 at 11:50 pm)Rahn127 Wrote: Things that exist or existed in your reply.

Dinosaurs - they existed. Lots of fossil evidence
Meteors exist. We see them all the time on a clear dark night.
Meteorites exist. We find them from time to time.
T-Rex existed. Again fossil evidence.
Doors exist, as well as huts.

Can you guess what doesn't exist ?

I guess you missed it.  It has to do with "conjecture."  You're applying fallacies to your thought process and coming to conclusions based on them.  Same thing you're going on about in another thread.  Dream physics and punching through walls.  Maybe relax a bit.

So you think I've arrived at some conclusion that is based upon incomplete information ?

Nope that's what theists do.
My conclusion is that they are having delusional thoughts because they are believing things without any evidence.

I feel like maybe you don't understand what words mean.

(December 23, 2018 at 12:15 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I guess you missed it.  It has to do with "conjecture."  You're applying fallacies to your thought process and coming to conclusions based on them.  Same thing you're going on about in another thread.  Dream physics and punching through walls.  Maybe relax a bit.

Quote:So you think I've arrived at some conclusion that is based upon incomplete information ?

Nope that's what theists do.
My conclusion is that they are having delusional thoughts because they are believing things without any evidence.

I feel like maybe you don't understand what words mean.

That, and that's his "schtick" 
... somewhere he learned that if he just tosses the *poo at the wall* about "fallacies" (which when pressed he cannot even name or identify), 
then he is spared the actual task of presenting a reasoned argument. Lazy and SOOO transparent.

(December 22, 2018 at 12:16 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

Quote:The proof is in the information for the millionth time.  Everyone fails to address this adequately.  No one can explain where the information bearing properties of DNA come from.

They have, again and again, including myself in the post above. 
You just don't want to hear what you don't want to hear. 
You position is held by a tiny minority. 

You are so ignorant of basic chemistry you are unable to even understand what you're looking at. 
You have no "proof". DNA doesn't "prove heaven". If it did, you would need no faith.

Matthew 16:4
A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah." Jesus then left them and went away.

Have fun with your sign. LOL

I am not praying for a sign.  I accidentally did before for a friend to show Him the power of the God of Israel and the sky lit up white and blue one summer night.

---

(December 23, 2018 at 6:51 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: @ CDF47:

Summary of failures to date:

You have failed to prove DNA was created by an intelligent designer.
You have failed to prove the existence of God.
You have failed to demonstrate that modern evolutionary theory is unreliable.
You have repeatedly conflated science with religion.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your dogmatic, inflexible thinking.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your crass ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
You have failed to prove that the Bible is true.
You have failed to prove the historicity of any biblical prophecies.
You have failed to demonstrate that any of the biblical scholars I referenced above are, in fact, atheists.
You have failed to demonstrate that any of them have an atheist agenda.

Any one here care to add to that list?

I haven't failed at any of those things.  The reason I am speaking of religion is because of the religious implications of the science.

Quote:I am not praying for a sign.

No one said you were. You're USING your (faulty) "information" as a sign.
"Oh ye of little faith".

Heh heh

(December 23, 2018 at 7:22 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: At work.

CDF47 constantly fails with their bizarre insistence that DNA is a 'Binary' code. When the molecule is made up of three sets of different nucleotides.

They have also failed to explain why DNA must operate in a triplet fashion as opposed to:

Dual; It would be 'simpler' and less resource intensive.
Quadruplex; it would be more robust to coding errors due to increased redundancies as well as being able to create a greater difference of amino acids (Current DNA codes for just 21 or 2
Quintuple; As well as being even more robust. This amount of coding would be able to transcribe ALL 110 known amino acids.

No explanation has been given as to why a pentose (5 sided) sugar/nucleic form is the 'Back bone' of the DNA as opposed to a Hexose (6 sided) form.

Why a carbohydrate sugar should form said chain instead of an even mord robust peptide chain.

I didn't say "Binary," I said digital, which it is digital.  A code can be digital but not binary.  

That is the way the Creator designed.  Perfection was not the intent of the design.  We were designed to live and die in this life.

---

(December 22, 2018 at 3:23 pm)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(December 22, 2018 at 6:35 am)CDF47 Wrote: Those scholars are atheist based.

---

---

I'd have to Google search each one.  Can you tell me?

---

Of course not. My point here is that you have no idea what you're talking about and you're just making up excuses on the fly in order to avoid the evidence brought against your unlikely claims. Go ahead, Mr. Know-it-All, tell us which of the above scholars are atheists. Then you can explain to us what you mean by "atheist based" and why it has any bearing on the historical accuracy of their work. And when you get done with them, I've got more than three dozen more fully-qualified biblical scholars for you to try to discredit.

You see, I don't have to prove you to be ignorant and intellectually dishonest. I'm going let you prove that to us all by yourself.

As long as you keep making grandiose claims with no evidence to back them up, you're going to get called out for it.

For as many atheists scientists you name, there are scientists that believe in a Creator, starting with Newton.

Quote:For as many atheists scientists you name, there are scientists that believe in a Creator, starting with Newton.

Prove it.
The overwhelming majority of the National Academy of Science is atheist.
https://strangenotions.com/tag/national-...-sciences/

At work.

(December 23, 2018 at 10:17 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(December 23, 2018 at 7:22 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: CDF47 constantly fails with their bizarre insistence that DNA is a 'Binary' code. When the molecule is made up of three sets of different nucleotides.

They have also failed to explain why DNA must operate in a triplet fashion as opposed to:

Dual; It would be 'simpler' and less resource intensive.
Quadruplex; it would be more robust to coding errors due to increased redundancies as well as being able to create a greater difference of amino acids (Current DNA codes for just 21 or 2
Quintuple; As well as being even more robust. This amount of coding would be able to transcribe ALL 110 known amino acids.

No explanation has been given as to why a pentose (5 sided) sugar/nucleic form is the 'Back bone' of the DNA as opposed to a Hexose (6 sided) form.

Why a carbohydrate sugar should form said chain instead of an even mord robust peptide chain.

I didn't say "Binary," I said digital, which it is digital.  A code can be digital but not binary.  

That is the way the Creator designed.  Perfection was not the intent of the design.  We were designed to live and die in this life.

So 'Digital' when used to describe holding 'Information' refers to using a sytem of TWO symbols to do so.

Genetic 'Information' (Human's terms, not reality) Uses FOUR different amino acids which combine in THREE different ways.

So, absolutely nothing 'Digital' about the chemisty of genetics.

How about some of those other perplexing questions being addressed , hey?

What does the great book of inspiration give hints as to the 'Why' of the shape and structure of DNA?

Am kind of betting the Bronze age scribes kind of missed those details.

A perfect being can only create perfect things.

At work.

But..... does that mean said 'Perfect Being' would get perfectly drunk? Or otherwise perfectly wasted?

As Stephen King never said "I can write horrible, grotesque stories in which the characters are killed off in very bizarre ways, but if I were to do that in real life, I would be a monster."

A good god with any moral clarity at all would never put people through hell on Earth and then torture them for an eternity in hell for the crime of not believing.

And yet that is what many theists expect their god will do. Those who are born into extremely poor circumstances live a life filled with misery and hardship. And then upon death, which should be their last moment of pain in this world, theists believe that their god will now torture them for eternity.

And they're ok with that.

In my opinion, those theists who believe that are sadistic.