2 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
I am glad to here that you agree that DNA/RNA is not an accident and does not occur by random chance. So do you agree DNA/RNA is there for a purpose? And if so, what is it?
I am glad to here that you agree that DNA/RNA is not an accident and does not occur by random chance
at last! You are beginning to half-get it! Unfortunately you clearly still don't get it: it is not just ME that doesn't think it was an accident but ANY rational person that understands the science. Do you understand that?
Atheists are generally NOT saying it was an accident -get it? The only ones that might be saying it is an accident would be a tiny minority that don't understand the science behind it.
So do you agree DNA/RNA is there for a purpose?
no silly. Something being inevitable does NOT imply it has a purpose. -comprehend?
The erosion of rock is inevitable given the right conditions -does that mean the erosion of rock has a purpose? -answer, of course not. The same is true for evolution.
How do you logically go from “X is not an accident” to necessarily “X has a purpose”? Why can't you have an X being neither an accident nor having a purpose? I have given you two examples of what X could be where it is inevitable and without purpose and only one example is needed to disprove your 'logic'.
I can give other examples to disprove your 'logic' if you like: thunder coming after lighting is no accident, so thunder coming after lighting has a purpose? Can you admit here that your 'logic' is CLEARLY erroneous?
3 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeI will try just a little longer and see if he finally gets it.
Give up.
RJHinds is irredeemably and intentionally thick and ignorant on this subject and has no
intention of ever understanding evolution or of debating the subject reasonably.
He's far too much of a coward to give up his straw man views of evolution.
If he doesn't then you will be proven right.
3 edits
Originally posted by humyYou are trying to equate two entirely different things here.
I am glad to here that you agree that DNA/RNA is not an accident and does not occur by random chance
at last! You are beginning to half-get it! Unfortunately you clearly still don't get it: it is not just ME that doesn't think it was an accident but [b]ANY rational person that understands the science. Do you understand that?
Atheists ter lighting has a purpose? Can you admit here that your 'logic' is CLEARLY erroneous?[/b]
The main purpose of DNA is to store and retain the genetic information needed to construct and maintain a living organism.
http://dna.microbiologyguide.com/514-purpose-of-dna-replication-behaviours-dna-molecule/
The main purpose of RNA is to copy and move the genetic information from the DNA in the cell nucleus to the site of protein synthesis in the cytoplasm.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_purpose_of_RNA
P.S. This is necessary to make sure God's living creations reproduce after their own kind just as the Holy Bible states. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
Now the question is who put this information in the first living things?
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
You are trying to equate two entirely different things here.
The main purpose of DNA is to store and retain the genetic information needed to construct and maintain a living organism.
http://dna.microbiologyguide.com/514-purpose-of-dna-replication-behaviours-dna-molecule/
The main purpose of RNA is to copy and move the genetic information from the DNA raise the Lord! 😏
Now the question is who put this information in the first living things?
You are trying to equate two entirely different things here.
The main purpose of DNA is to store and retain the genetic information needed to construct and maintain a living organism.
http://dna.microbiologyguide.com/514-purpose-of-dna-replication-behaviours-dna-molecule/
The main purpose of RNA is to copy and move the genetic information from the DNA in the cell nucleus to the site of protein synthesis in the cytoplasm.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_purpose_of_RNA
( note that the word “purpose” in the above links should be given a non-standard meaning that does not imply intent )
You obviously don't understand the science because the two CAN equate!
Have you heard of RNA viruses?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_virus
MOST viruses are RNA viruses and that means they have NO DNA because all the genetic information is retained in the RNA and NOT DNA thus proving the two CAN equate!
The main hypothesis at the current time given the evidence we have to date is that the first life entirely consisted of RNA lifeforms ( not just RNA viruses but viruses came later anyway ) but then the better adapted DNA cellular lifeforms evolved and wiped out the RNA cellular lifeforms by competition.
Now the question is WHO put this information in the first living things? (my emphasis)
-yet another stupid question: why must it be a "WHO"? why cannot be a "WHAT"?
-tell us why not....
your question is like asking “WHO put the geometric information into the ice crystals of a snowflake?”.
OK, I give you another challenge despite you didn't do the first one:
Either answer this question or say what it wrong with this question:
“WHO put the geometric information into the ice crystals of a snowflake?”
as for WHAT ( not "WHO" ) put the genetic info there: what put the infomation there was:
1, abiogenesis of RNA ( almost certainly not DNA ) cellular lifeforms followed by 2, evolution.
Now I have answered your question, I have a question for you: Have you finally understood that we ( most atheists ) do NOT believe and are NOT claiming that all life is “just a pure random accident” and in fact we are saying the exact opposite?
And I have another one: Have you finally understood that saying something is not an accident does NOT logically imply it MUST have a purpose with intent?
1 edit
Originally posted by humyViruses are different from cellular organisms and have their own classification system. However the scientist don't understand them completely even though the reproduction process is still similar with less control to avoid mutations.
[quote]
You are trying to equate two entirely different things here.
The main purpose of DNA is to store and retain the genetic information needed to construct and maintain a living organism.
http://dna.microbiologyguide.com/514-purpose-of-dna-replication-behaviours-dna-molecule/
The main purpose of RNA is to copy and move the genetic information fr is not an accident does [b]NOT logically imply it MUST have a purpose with intent?[/b]
Although Group VII viruses such as hepatitis B contain a DNA genome, they are not considered DNA viruses according to the Baltimore classification, but rather reverse transcribing viruses because they replicate through an RNA intermediate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification#Baltimore_classification
This is only a strawman in an attempt to complicate the issue, which is information in the form of DNA or RNA has been placed in all organism by God. Information is not known to come from any source that is not intelligent. This is the reason scientists are beginning to believe in Intelligent Design in biological systems. This DNA or RNA is there to instruct the replication of the organism in the reproduction process. No reproduction is possible without the computer imformation code in the same way as a man-made computer performs no function without the man-made computer code. So we know the source of the information code for the computer code. It did not get there by chance. Only an idiot would suggest that. So the same holds for the much more complicated code that God created to govern his living creations.
“WHO put the geometric information into the ice crystals of a snowflake?”
If there is information in the ice crystals, then it must have come from an intelligent source. To me, the obvious anwser is GOD.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou often repeat this as if its an insult but scientists readily accept they "don't understand" things completely. That's what drives science; the thirst for more knowledge. Fortunately there have been men throughout history who have not accepted "God did it" as an answer and sought out the truth.
... However the scientist don't understand them completely
Originally posted by wolfgang59All I ask is for them not to claim things they have no proof for, especially if it contradicts the Holy Bible. That is a NO, NO.
You often repeat this as if its an insult but scientists readily accept they "don't understand" things completely. That's what drives science; the thirst for more knowledge. Fortunately there have been men throughout history who have not accepted "God did it" as an answer and sought out the truth.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBut you and your fellow theist do nothing but claim things you have no proof of. In fact that is all you do. even when it contradicts common sense and perceived reality.
All I ask is for them not to claim things they have no proof for, especially if it contradicts the Holy Bible. That is a NO, NO.
1 edit
Originally posted by kevcvs57
But you and your fellow theist do nothing but claim things you have no proof of. In fact that is all you do. even when it contradicts common sense and perceived reality.
But you and your fellow theist do nothing but claim things you have no proof of. In fact that is all you do. even when it contradicts common sense and perceived reality.
When the Apostle John finishes off his Gospel, he indicates to the reader that all that he has presented is to serve as evidence for Jesus being the Son of God. Here is how he puts it:
"Moreover indeed may other signs also Jesus did before His disciles, which are not written in this book. But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:30,31)
Why should I reject this evidence of the things the disciple John has written ?
On what basis should this evidence be discounted and belief in the Son of God be suspended by me ?
7 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds
Viruses are different from cellular organisms and have their own classification system. However the scientist don't understand them completely even though the reproduction process is still similar with less control to avoid mutations.
Although Group VII viruses such as hepatitis B contain a DNA genome, they are not considered DNA viruses according to the ...[text shortened]... crystals, then it must have come from an intelligent source. To me, the obvious anwser is GOD.
Viruses are different from cellular organisms and have their own classification system.
so? how does that relate to my post?
Although Group VII viruses such as hepatitis B contain a DNA genome, they are not considered DNA viruses according to the Baltimore classification, but rather reverse transcribing viruses because they replicate through an RNA intermediate.
irrelevant. How does this relate to my post?
This is only a strawman in an attempt to complicate the issue,
which “argument” are your referring to here?
I never disused the classification of viruses. I only said there RNA viruses contain no DNA, which is mainly true. So you shown that there are exceptions to this; so what? If there are some viruses that contain both RNA and DNA that are classified as RNA viruses, so what? That doesn't change the fact that there ARE RNA viruses without DNA thus proving that RNA CAN do BOTH the job of coding for proteins AND carrying genetic information so my actual relevant point stays unchallenged.
No reproduction is possible without the computer imformation code in the same way as a man-made computer performs ...
so now you saying the genetic information is a computer code 😛 have you got any evidence for this? -You would need to demonstrate that a living cell or some part of it IS a computer.
It did not get there by CHANCE. ( my emphasis )
here we go again; the same old crap. WHO is saying it got there by “CHANCE” ? -Not me, not anyone I know, not science, so WHO? WHO!?
How many times must I keep pointing out to you that we are NOT saying life, evolution, DNA, genetic code, etc is here by chance or accident?
Can't you read my posts? Are you such a moron that you cannot comprehend this very simple fact?
You are rapidly proving here googlefudge completely right about you. But I will give you just a bit more time -last chance;
Do you understand that we are NOT saying/believing/claiming/implying that life, evolution, DNA, genetic code, etc is here by chance or accident? yes or no?
-the only way you can disprove googlefudge about you is by giving the right answer to this question; well?
“WHO put the geometric information into the ice crystals of a snowflake?”
IF there is information in the ice crystals, ( my emphasis )
IF there is information? There IS information; geometric information. Do you comprehend the words “ geometric information” ?
It can include such information as how many axis’s / plains of symmetry there are and other information on the shape.
then it must have come from an intelligent source.
what? The geometric information in a snowflake must have come from an intelligent source? 😛 Not from natural processes in clouds? 😛 Give me a break. Only a moron could believe such a thing.
Originally posted by humyNumbnut! Information does not occur by accident as you readily admit. In all cases we know of, information requires an intelligent source, like a computer programmer in case of computer information code. DNA and RNA is like computer information code, so logically it requires an intelligent source for the original code before it could know how to start duplicating itself in the process of reproduction. God designed these living creations of his to reproduce themselves and this is the way he provided for it to take place. Simple as that.Viruses are different from cellular organisms and have their own classification system.
so? how does that relate to my post?
[quote] Although Group VII viruses such as hepatitis B contain a DNA genome, they are not considered DNA viruses according to the Baltimore classification, but rather reverse transcribing viruses because they repli ...[text shortened]... rom natural processes in clouds? 😛 Give me a break. Only a moron could believe such a thing.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds
Numbnut! Information does not occur by accident as you readily admit. In all cases we know of, information requires an intelligent source, like a computer programmer in case of computer information code. DNA and RNA is like computer information code, so logically it requires an intelligent source for the original code before it could know how to start dup ...[text shortened]... the way he provided for it to take place. Simple as that.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
Numbnut! Information does not occur by accident as you readily admit.
so?
In all cases we know of, information requires an intelligent source,
false. Example; the geometric information in a snowflake.
DNA and RNA is like computer information code,
in what way? Certainly not in a way that requires an intelligence for we know it evolved and evolution has no intelligence.
so LOGICALLY it requires an intelligent source for the original code (my emphasis)
you clearly demonstrating here that you do not know what “ LOGICALLY” means. Your conclusion clearly doesn't follow from your premise -no intelligence “LOGICALLY” required.
You have really proven googlefudge correct for you haven't answered my questions.
Reminder of what he said:
Originally posted by googlefudge
Give up.
RJHinds is irredeemably and intentionally thick and ignorant on this subject and has no
intention of ever understanding evolution or of debating the subject reasonably.
He's far too much of a coward to give up his straw man views of evolution.
Come on RJHinds, are you not even going to TRY and prove him wrong?
I dare you. If you do this then I take it all back.
Originally posted by jaywillThat's all well and good for internal purposes, but you cannot pass it off as proof to a non theist, whilst at the same time demanding objective proof from us and even rejecting that when you get it.
But you and your fellow theist do nothing but claim things you have no proof of. In fact that is all you do. even when it contradicts common sense and perceived reality.
When the Apostle John finishes off his Gospel, he indicates to the reader that all that he has presented is to serve as [b]evidence for Jesus being the Son of G ...[text shortened]... is should this evidence be discounted and belief in the Son of God be suspended by me ?[/b]
Originally posted by kevcvs57
That's all well and good for internal purposes, but you cannot pass it off as proof to a non theist, whilst at the same time demanding objective proof from us and even rejecting that when you get it.
That's all well and good for internal purposes, but you cannot pass it off as proof to a non theist, whilst at the same time demanding objective proof from us and even rejecting that when you get it.
I am not pointing to proof. I am asking why, in making my decision about God's reality or not, I should not take into account the evidence.
John says in essence - "I provided these records as evidence so that you would believe." [paraphrase]
Any good reason why I should not utilize John's evidence of much of what Jesus said and did in my decision to believe in God ?