2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseArr yes. The word “nothing” in the first sentence means in that context “No X nor anything in the place of X” (where X=Margarine in this case )
I like the last reference, Margarine is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than butter.
Therefore margarine is better than butter🙂
while the word “nothing” in the second sentence means in that context “Not anything other than X” (where X=butter in this case )
and here we then erroneously equivocate the “No X nor anything in the place of X” meaning with the “Not anything other than X” meaning to give the invalid inference for the conclusion in the third sentence.
pity RJH never understands such subtly when he writes his posts here for he routinely and regularly equivocates in them.
Originally posted by humyYour DNA carries all of the information for your physical characteristics, which are essentially determined by proteins. So, DNA contains the instructions for making a protein. In DNA, each protein is encoded by a gene (a specific sequence of DNA nucleotides that specify how a single protein is to be made). Specifically, the order of nucleotides within a gene specifies the order and types of amino acids that must be put together to make a protein.information requires intelligence.
CLEARLY false, especially when considering the fact that we are attaching a none standard to the word “information” when we taking about “genetic information”.
For example, using a similar kind of none standard meaning of “information”, there is "geometric information" in a snowflake; no intellig ...[text shortened]... standard meanings with standard meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
well?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna4.htm
Instructional information is what I am referring to. This instructional information requires an intelligence capable of the directing and the organization of the process of creating. Evilution has never been shown to exhibit any such capability. As you have admitted, evilution has no intelligence. Instructional information always comes from an intelligent source.
The Instructor
2 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsRJHinds:
Your DNA carries all of the information for your physical characteristics, which are essentially determined by proteins. So, [b]DNA contains the instructions for making a protein. In DNA, each protein is encoded by a gene (a specific sequence of DNA nucleotides that specify how a single protein is to be made). Specifically, the order of nucleotides withi ...[text shortened]... elligence. Instructional information always comes from an intelligent source.
The Instructor[/b]
Please do NOT insult our intelligence by telling us scientists what we OBVIOUSLY already know about DNA (or anything else scientific for that matter ), esp as most of us, including myself, know much more about it than you do!
This instructional information requires an intelligence capable of the directing and the organization of the process of creating.
The DNA instructional information creating what? The proteins they code for? If so, then it is only a trivial observation that the chemical reactions that allow DNA to make RNA and then proteins don't require an intelligence to precede.
If not, then what are you talking about? You are being very unclear.
Instructional information always comes from an intelligent source.
not with the none standard meaning of the word “ Instructional” as in what you are using here in the context of DNA. This is just you same debunked play with semantics for you are equivocating here yet again by arbitrary equating a standard meaning with a none standard meaning:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
get it now?
try again -this time without equivocating.
Originally posted by humyIf you are a scientist, then you are not a biological scientist or else you must be a crummy scientist to not understand how the instructional information in the DNA requires an intelligent source. Even a non-scientist like myself understands that.
RJHinds:
Please do NOT insult our intelligence by telling us scientists what we OBVIOUSLY already know about DNA (or anything else scientific for that matter ), esp as most of us, including myself, know much more about it than you do!
[quote] This instructional information requires an intelligence capable of the directing and the organization of the pr ...[text shortened]... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
get it now?
try again -this time without equivocating.
You claim to know more about it than I do. However, you don't understand the simple fact that instructional information requires a source. You must be what they call "an educated fool."
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsThat statement just shows you know NOTHING. You are, in fact, in cold fact, an idiot in science.
If you are a scientist, then you are not a biological scientist or else you must be a crummy scientist to not understand how the instructional information in the DNA requires an intelligent source. Even a non-scientist like myself understands that.
You claim to know more about it than I do. However, you don't understand the simple fact that instruction ...[text shortened]... information requires a source. You must be what they call "an educated fool."
The Instructor
Originally posted by sonhouseA good understanding of any subject, including science, requires intelligent use of reasoning and logic, at which I excel. I admit that I have not studied every area of science and my knowledge may be lacking in some areas. However, no amount of knowledge will turn an evilution fool into a wise scientist.
That statement just shows you know NOTHING. You are, in fact, in cold fact, an idiot in science.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsI got a good belly laugh out of that one. You have an extremely high opinion of yourself. A false one at that but that is part of your delusion.
A good understanding of any subject, including science, requires intelligent use of reasoning and logic, at which I excel. I admit that I have not studied every area of science and my knowledge may be lacking in some areas. However, no amount of knowledge will turn an evilution fool into a wise scientist.
The Instructor
I found this on the internet somewhere. I think this guy knows what he's talking about, I guess he must have come from a clever family.
I'd like to take a moment to say this: In nearly all cases of a religious leader attempting to explain something in the realm of science, the religious leader is exceptionally under-qualified to speak on the matter. Your pastor, reverend, priest, imam, rabbi, etc., knows a ton about your religion, so seek his or her advice and wisdom on religious matters. But when it comes to science, find an actual scientist who studies the field to explain it to you, please.
1 edit
Originally posted by Fat LadyThe funny part about knowing about religion is it's like an onion. Pull apart layer after layer of this knowledge and you go deeper and deeper. Then you get to the center and find nothing there.
I found this on the internet somewhere. I think this guy knows what he's talking about, I guess he must have come from a clever family.I'd like to take a moment to say this: In nearly all cases of a religious leader attempting to explain something in the realm of science, the religious leader is exceptionally under-qualified to speak on the matte ...[text shortened]... science, find an actual scientist who studies the field to explain it to you, please.
Humans excel at making up stories. That is the sum of it. Look at the number of different creation myths out there. The funny part is, christians and Jews and Muslims get all bent out of shape if you call their particular fairy tales myths.
It's all totally real to them. It really is a shame for BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of people to be so deluded. And it wouldn't matter if all 8 billion of us wish for a god, that is not going to make one nor is it going to validate one.
Originally posted by sonhouseThere seems to be different evilution myths out there too. You get bent out of shape too, when we refer to your evilution myths as fairy tales for grown-ups.
The funny part about knowing about religion is it's like an onion. Pull apart layer after layer of this knowledge and you go deeper and deeper. Then you get to the center and find nothing there.
Humans excel at making up stories. That is the sum of it. Look at the number of different creation myths out there. The funny part is, christians and Jews and Mu ...[text shortened]... l 8 billion of us wish for a god, that is not going to make one nor is it going to validate one.
God needs no validation from the likes of you.
The Instructor
Originally posted by RJHindsWell then, let IT say so, not some self lobotomized human.
There seems to be different evilution myths out there too. You get bent out of shape too, when we refer to your evilution myths as fairy tales for grown-ups.
God needs no validation from the likes of you.
The Instructor