Quote: No, scientists get things wrong all the time.

And none of those things refute evolution nor the consensus of science on matter you deny 

Quote:  Quit substituting them in as your god.

Quit projecting your cultist mentality onto me

(April 23, 2019 at 9:22 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(April 23, 2019 at 9:25 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I wonder how you know science got something wrong when it never admitted to it or addressed it?

It gets pointed out by other scientists (not the establishment).

All qualified scientists who work in the relevant field are part of the establishment. Pointing our each other's mistakes is a fundamental part of the scientific enterprise.

As an aside, scientists aren't in charge of keeping textbooks up-to-date.

(April 23, 2019 at 10:29 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 11:07 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

This is just more discussion for me.  The debate was won with the first post in this thread in the OP, LOL.

Wrong again.  
There never even was any debate here. 
Your premise is false and undefined, and you are not even able to define your terms.

---

(April 23, 2019 at 10:15 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I took science in school.  I seen enough of that BS.  I like reading about information in our cells and the most recent information we know.  Not a 20 - 30 year old out of date resource.

---

He sure does.  It is just due to man's rebellion and sin.  That's why it is just.

You cannot come up with even ONE example of anything that changed when your (fake-made-up) "rebellion and sin" happened. 
It's nothing but fake made-up bullshit nonsense.

That's your opinion.

---

(April 23, 2019 at 11:22 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:I am not an evolved ape. 

Yes you are 

Quote:Science does not say that. 

Yes it does 

Quote:Look at the Day-Age Interpretation of the Bible. 

Both unscientific and unbiblical 

Quote:I think you must know by now that you were created. 

Then you would be wrong 

Quote:How could you not?

Because he's not nuts

---

Quote:It is not just complex.  Again, it is FUNCTIONAL.  The code works and operates as a code should.

It doesn't matter what ID new speak you attach his comparison is valid and no it does not .

---

(April 23, 2019 at 9:18 am)CDF47 Wrote: I showed it to be true and it is impossible to be shown wrong 

The complete opposite

---

Quote:They do not admit to being wrong. 

Mainly because they are not wrong

Quote:The science of today with evolution is about 100 years out of sorts. 

Nope it right on top of things

Quote:Textbooks are like 20 to 30 years behind the times.

False it's a current as current can be

Quote:  All the things they got wrong over these years are not always addressed and sometimes never addressed.

Any errors have been addressed and evolution is more true now then it's ever been and ID will not take it down . It will die like every quack alternative before it .

Functional is my term, not an ID term.  They call it complex and specified.  I call it complex, specified, and functional.

---

(April 23, 2019 at 11:29 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote:

(April 23, 2019 at 10:29 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I took science in school.  I seen enough of that BS.  I like reading about information in our cells and the most recent information we know.  Not a 20 - 30 year old out of date resource.

---

Yet you are unable to even begin to discuss Szostak's video, and you lack even basic knowledge of chemistry and chemical bonds, and what makes molecules work the way they do.  
You "seen" enough of that BS ? Really ? Yet you claim to be an engineer ? You must have skipped the English classes.
I think we have a liar here. 
I *seen* that people who say "I seen", actually don't have even a high-school education.
It is funny ... eventually the truth will out. This guy is a wind-up Fundy troll

Spin my words some more.

---

(April 24, 2019 at 12:22 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(April 23, 2019 at 10:08 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I am not an evolved ape. 

You simply and uncontestably are.  This fact remains a fact even if we assume that tinkergod, somehow™, made you.  It is either a fact of the natural development of our species, or it's unnatural creation.   

You may prefer to believe that you are what you are because god made you to be so, but what you are remains unaltered by this belief.   

Quote:Science does not say that. 

Put bluntly, it does.  However, it's unclear why this should trouble you given your previous comments on how often science gets things wrong.  Then again, it's unclear why being what you are should trouble you at all.    

Quote: Look at the Day-Age Interpretation of the Bible. 

To what end?  I don't need a believer to tell me that magic book can't be taken at it's word, I already know that.  

Quote:I think you must know by now that you were created.  How could you not?

OFC I was.  Sometimes, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much.............

Regarding the Day-Age Interpretation, it does fit with the Bible.  See the chart below:

https://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

---

(April 24, 2019 at 12:59 am)pocaracas Wrote: Once more, CDF shows everyone just how brainwashed he is.
Learned science in school and it's bs, but somehow made it trough an engineering course.

Not all of science in school is BS.  Just mainly the part where it says man evolved from ape.  This is not proven.  There is other BS in science, I know.  Just like not all history is BS but where they leave out the parts about COINTELPRO, CIA Project MK Ultra, Operation Mockingbird, Operation Gladio, Operation Northwoods,..........

---

(April 24, 2019 at 3:38 am)madog Wrote:

(April 23, 2019 at 10:11 pm)CDF47 Wrote: He allows there to be mishaps in the design since this is a fallen world.  I explained that already.  Good question though.

---

It seems you accept that God allows for microevolution/mishaps?  .....

Did this being, you belive in, allow evolutionary changes/mishaps up to a point then bar those changes resulting in speciation?

And how did he stop small changes eventually turning into speciation?

What part of your source .... the bible .... do you rely on for the above? or did God give you or your ... ID  self declared demigods ... some special understanding?


I mean if customisation of a car is allowed and in particular waterproofing and sealing the under carriage, at some point it will float  .....

with further customisations to the engine it can be made to move on the water like an amphibian car ....

losing the wheels and filling in the area and adding a bow could make it move better on the water ....

etc etc etc  ..... 

At what point does it become a boat? 

As shown above customisation of a car at some point could make the car a boat, submarine, plane, ( seating area for a 60's cafe lol ) etc.

So I ask again .... What has your God put in place to stop microevolution turning into macroevolution? and what do rely on to show he has?

Also  .... how can your God know all .....  if mishaps are going on everywhere ... fucking up his plan?

He stops microevolution at a point where He deems fit.  The science just may not be there yet.

He allows for the mishaps in this fallen world and He allows for some randomness.  Some randomness, not all.  The mishaps are not beyond His control.

---

(April 24, 2019 at 6:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote:

(April 23, 2019 at 10:11 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

---

It is not just complex.  Again, it is FUNCTIONAL.  The code works and operates as a code should.

It's fun to watch you obfuscating in order to avoid the responsibility of a counterargument. First you avoided providing proof that complexity in DNA proves a designer, now in order to try distracting us from your faux pas, you shift the goalposts from complexity to operational code. One thing you have established beyond any reasonable doubt is your high level of intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously biological complexity is beyond your understanding, as is the nature of genetic coding. To wit:

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
   
   Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
   
   An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
   
   
2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
   

References:

1. Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29. 
   

The fact that genetic coding is functional does not, in any way, indicate the existence of a designer. Get an education, numb nuts.

The fact that it is complex, specified, and functional/operational does prove it is designed.  The code didn't write itself.

---

(April 24, 2019 at 7:27 am)Deesse23 Wrote: The last time i have written some code, i was happy when it copied from one drive to another without read or write errors. Given the fact i got it running in the first place.
The least i wanted to happen, is that the code mutated randomly, on its own, after i got it running. If i had given my boss a code that mutates around on each copy, i would have been fired (or my boss would have bought new storage devices that dont suck so hard in copying my code).

But hey, im just a fallible human engineer, what do i know about engineering entire trees of life......which mutate all the time.....in random ways.

Adaptation is not all that random.

---

(April 24, 2019 at 7:48 am)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:He allows there to be mishaps in the design since this is a fallen world.  I explained that already.  Good question though.

Which isn't an answer

---

(April 24, 2019 at 6:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: It's fun to watch you obfuscating in order to avoid the responsibility of a counterargument. First you avoided providing proof that complexity in DNA proves a designer, now in order to try distracting us from your faux pas, you shift the goalposts from complexity to operational code. One thing you have established beyond any reasonable doubt is your high level of intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously biological complexity is beyond your understanding, as is the nature of genetic coding. To wit:

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
   
   Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
   
   An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
   
   
2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
   

References:

1. Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29. 
   

The fact that genetic coding is functional does not, in any way, indicate the existence of a designer. Get an education, numb nuts.

Oh those are those evil scientist who are behind the times despite what they say is still what science journals write . But he has access to the "latest" stuff (quack IDiot self published tripe or misinformation about real science )

Misinformation???  You want to talk about misinformation...try a school system history book.  There you will find both misinformation and disinformation.  You will find some of the same in science books.

---

(April 24, 2019 at 8:04 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(April 23, 2019 at 9:13 am)CDF47 Wrote: No, scientists get things wrong all the time.  Quit substituting them in as your god.

There is no God, or no visible God, so we need to rely on the next most trustworthy thing at our disposal, the consensus of science and scientists.

Man is wrong all the time though.  I will stick with what I believe is the Word of God.  It matches with how I feel inside.

---

(April 24, 2019 at 8:19 am)Amarok Wrote:

Quote: No, scientists get things wrong all the time.

And none of those things refute evolution nor the consensus of science on matter you deny 

Quote:  Quit substituting them in as your god.

Quit projecting your cultist mentality onto me

Macroevolution is heavily debated.

I am not projecting anything onto you.

(April 24, 2019 at 9:28 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(April 24, 2019 at 12:22 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: You simply and uncontestably are.  This fact remains a fact even if we assume that tinkergod, somehow™, made you.  It is either a fact of the natural development of our species, or it's unnatural creation.   

You may prefer to believe that you are what you are because god made you to be so, but what you are remains unaltered by this belief.   

Put bluntly, it does.  However, it's unclear why this should trouble you given your previous comments on how often science gets things wrong.  Then again, it's unclear why being what you are should trouble you at all.    

To what end?  I don't need a believer to tell me that magic book can't be taken at it's word, I already know that.  

OFC I was.  Sometimes, when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much.............

Regarding the Day-Age Interpretation, it does fit with the Bible.  See the chart below:

https://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Again, why should it matter to me that you believe magic book can't be taken at it's word?  I already knew that.  Both about magic book, and about you.  

For as long as there have been christians, christians have been claiming that the jewish half of magic book (and jews..generally) got things wrong.  Why magic book getting so much so comically wrong is a problem for christian creationists is only made even more inexplicable by this fact.

In their defense, for as long as there have been christians, there have been jews to tell the christians that they're reading magic book wrong. Personally, I see little value in retconning magic book if you're going to half ass it. Once you've decided that it's kosher to fix the text so that it "fits" a fact, you may as well fix it so that it fits the entirety of those facts. There was no dirt man, no rib woman..the jews got that wrong (like so much else). OTOH, the story was only ever meant to express that god had a plan and a relationship, from the beginning, for and with man...which can be equally true (and must be equally and concomitanly true, if true) with the facts of biology. Facts such as what you are, and how you came to be so.

Quote:Man is wrong all the time though. I will stick with what I believe is the Word of God. It matches with how I feel inside.

Now, this wasn't directed at me, but I'm sure that Jorm would suggest much the same........perhaps you should apply the insight in the first half of this statement to the back of the statement....? You are, at least, being more honest with yourself and with us in making such a statement than you have been at any previous point in thread. As before, half assing things like this seems like so much wasted effort.

(April 24, 2019 at 9:21 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 23, 2019 at 9:22 am)CDF47 Wrote: It gets pointed out by other scientists (not the establishment).

All qualified scientists who work in the relevant field are part of the establishment. Pointing our each other's mistakes is a fundamental part of the scientific enterprise.

As an aside, scientists aren't in charge of keeping textbooks up-to-date.

I am referring to the mainstream scientist that is pushed on the propaganda machine (I meant the television, my bad).  

I never said scientists were in charge of keeping text books up to date.

---

(April 24, 2019 at 9:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(April 24, 2019 at 9:28 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

Regarding the Day-Age Interpretation, it does fit with the Bible.  See the chart below:

https://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Again, why should it matter to me that you believe magic book can't be taken at it's word?  I already knew that.  Both about magic book, and about you.  

For as long as there have been christians, christians have been claiming that the jewish half of magic book (and jews..generally) got things wrong.  Why magic book getting so much so comically wrong is a problem for christian creationists is only made even more inexplicable by this fact.

In their defense, for as long as there have been christians, there have been jews to tell the christians that they're reading magic book wrong.

You obviously didn't read the chart I posted.  It shows the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures in comparison to science.  It makes sense.

(April 24, 2019 at 9:52 am)CDF47 Wrote: I am referring to the mainstream  

---

 Mainstream in the US are Christians .... seems you want to push for more fundamentalism?

See how that worked with the likes of Isis

---

(April 24, 2019 at 9:28 am)CDF47 Wrote: He stops microevolution at a point where He deems fit.  

And you know that because? .... 
Its in the bible?    ..... please show where .....
God spoke to you?  ..... which means you pulled it out of your butt .....
Your ID buddies told you?  .... show where in the bible they got the evidence  ....
Somewhere else?  .... please explain ....
Above is step 1  .... then we can consider the evidence ....

(April 24, 2019 at 9:52 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(April 24, 2019 at 9:51 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Again, why should it matter to me that you believe magic book can't be taken at it's word?  I already knew that.  Both about magic book, and about you.  

For as long as there have been christians, christians have been claiming that the jewish half of magic book (and jews..generally) got things wrong.  Why magic book getting so much so comically wrong is a problem for christian creationists is only made even more inexplicable by this fact.

In their defense, for as long as there have been christians, there have been jews to tell the christians that they're reading magic book wrong.

You obviously didn't read the chart I posted.  It shows the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures in comparison to science.  It makes sense.

Are you chiefly interested in trying to make magic book "make sense" when it does not, or are you committed to what you believe is the word of god, because it matches how you feel inside? Do you feel inside that magic book must be corrected so that it makes sense?

(April 24, 2019 at 9:28 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(April 24, 2019 at 6:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: It's fun to watch you obfuscating in order to avoid the responsibility of a counterargument. First you avoided providing proof that complexity in DNA proves a designer, now in order to try distracting us from your faux pas, you shift the goalposts from complexity to operational code. One thing you have established beyond any reasonable doubt is your high level of intellectual dishonesty.

Obviously biological complexity is beyond your understanding, as is the nature of genetic coding. To wit:

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
   
   Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
   
   An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
   
   
2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
   

References:

1. Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29. 
   

The fact that genetic coding is functional does not, in any way, indicate the existence of a designer. Get an education, numb nuts.

The fact that it is complex, specified, and functional/operational does prove it is designed.  The code didn't write itself.

Oh, I keep forgetting---you're a pathological liar.

I realize that you lack the intellectual integrity to study some actual science, but the very references I have provided above prove you wrong. Genetic code is not written. It is the product of biochemistry and natural selection. Get an education, numb nuts! 

(April 24, 2019 at 6:41 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: ...

Obviously biological complexity is beyond your understanding, as is the nature of genetic coding. To wit:

1. The genetic code is not a true code; it is more of a cypher. DNA is a sequence of four different bases (denoted A, C, G, and T) along a backbone. When DNA gets translated to protein, triplets of bases (codons) get converted sequentially to the amino acids that make up the protein, with some codons acting as a "stop" marker. The mapping from codon to amino acid is arbitrary (not completely arbitrary, but close enough for purposes of argument). However, that one mapping step -- from 64 possible codons to 20 amino acids and a stop signal -- is the only arbitrariness in the genetic code. The protein itself is a physical object whose function is determined by its physical properties.
   
   Furthermore, DNA gets used for more than making proteins. Much DNA is transcribed directly to functional RNA. Other DNA acts to regulate genetic processes. The physical properties of the DNA and RNA, not any arbitrary meanings, determine how they act.
   
   An essential property of language is that any word can refer to any object. That is not true in genetics. The genetic code which maps codons to proteins could be changed, but doing so would change the meaning of all sequences that code for proteins, and it could not create arbitrary new meanings for all DNA sequences. Genetics is not true language.
   
   
2. The word frequencies of all natural languages follow a power law (Zipf's Law). DNA does not follow this pattern (Tsonis et al. 1997).
   

References:

1. Tsonis, A. A., J. B. Elsner and P. A. Tsonis, 1997. Is DNA a language? Journal of Theoretical Biology 184: 25-29. 
   

The fact that genetic coding is functional does not, in any way, indicate the existence of a designer. Get an education, numb nuts.

Good post.  A few added points concerning protein formation:

1)  DNA does not directly code for proteins.  An inverse copy of one side (always the same side) of a portion of a DNA molecule is made into messenger RNA (mRNA).  Next, an inverse copy of that mRNA is made into transcription RNA (tRNA), which, in essence results in a copy of that certain side of the original DNA sequence at issue.

2)  61 of the 64 codons map for a specific amino acid.  Some codons map for the same amino acid and three function as stop codes.

3)  The tRNA then builds the specific protein to which the codons map.

4)  The folding of proteins is a function and property of how the amino acids are sequenced in the polypeptide chain/protein.

5)  The "left-handedness"  of proteins is due to the state of the tRNA (traced back to the side of the DNA molecule that was used to make mRNA.  Had the other side of the DNA molecule been used to make mRNA, proteins would all be "right-handed", and they would have been coded differently.

6)  I'm leaving aside the enzymatic chemistry during these processes for now.

At work.

Wait..... if I'm reading you correctly Sdelsolray, then only 'Half' of the DNA chain/molecule is ever used?

What happens to other 'Right hand' (?) side of the DNA stuff?

Cheers.