Tudór:

Em, replication, transcription and location all occur naturally. Its by these mechanisms cells multiply and proteins are formed.

tot u were talking about artificial replication as attempted on robotic beings.
but that not withstanding. . .how does ur assertion support the lack of need for a super intelligent being?

jagunlabi:

No, it is not silly.That is what you guys try to do every time and all the time, win debates.

Oh? And that was the reason why you're still sweating it out to win your own? Sillier than I imagined.

Point me to one.Point me to a painting that was not painted by no painter.Point me to an automobile that was not built by an automobilemaker.Just because you cannot identify the painter of a painting does not mean that the painting never had a painter.

Have you ever heard of simulacra, pareidolia and apophenia? Okay, not many people like to talk about Dawkins' designoids, but let me give you a few examples of simulacra and apophenia, where people sometimes believe that these images are pictures of the real world:

           
           Burnt tortilla where some see
           the face of Jesus - who sculpted it?

           
           the so-called 'face' on mars -
           who sculpted it?


         
          Pareidolia of false wood painting -
          who painted it?


          [img]http://mikesplace.freeserverhost.com/Gallimaufry/VirginMaryGrilledCheese/Virgin%20Mary%20in%20Grilled%20Cheese,%20box%20print%20&%20framed%20print.jpg[/img]
          'Virgin Mary' in bread toast -
           who in the celestial heavens
           sculpted it?

If you want to argue down a religious person, then you'd have a better chance disproving the identity of the creator claimed by the religious person.That makes more sense.

This is even sillier than I thought for you! Was I trying to argue down any religious system or disproving the identity of the Creator? Are you so silly?  I asked a simple question from what you said about DNA as "proof" for the Creator - and my question was 'How?' Nothing more than that as to make you bring up this laughable quibble about my trying to disprove any Creator.

I say it does prove a creator and if you disagree, then prove to me how it doesn't.

You say it, all I wanted to know is HOW?
For me, why DNA does not prove the Creator's existence is simply because it is like Mathematics or any orther discipline that people try to use as "proof" for the supernatural. Some may make the attempt, but just HOW do they try to prove that?

Moreover, i don't care what you believe in and what gender you give the creator, afterall it is not that important since this is not about proving the ID of the creator, but just the existence there of.

Do I care what you believe either?

Kay 17:

aren't you aware of the theory of evolution. the process of survival and reproduction and transfer of a desirable trait to the next generation. dna holds the genes. don't you see the connection.

I am aware of the theory of evolution. That was not what I asked you, Kay 17. I was asking you about DNA - and again my questions:

What exactly is the 'core' of evolution that it backs up?

How does your 'core' reason out how DNA came to be what it is in the first place?

Jesu died with thieves lmaolmaokmajh

christianity claims that man was formed by God from sand and you posit that the presence of DNA and its programming features suggest a designer. but how does sand and programming instructions mix? but the presence of DNA fits exactly into the evolution theory. in the 15th century, in europe, it was thought that the looks of the midwife was going to be transferred to the baby. the role of DNA is to contain the genetic information. sounds better than sand and programming mixed together.

Kay 17:

christianity claims that man was formed by God from sand and you posit that the presence of DNA and its programming features suggest a designer. but how does sand and programming instructions mix? but the presence of DNA fits exactly into the evolution theory. in the 15th century, in europe, it was thought that the looks of the midwife was going to be transferred to the baby. the role of DNA is to contain the genetic information. sounds better than sand and programming mixed together.

Do I repeat my initial rejoinder to you? This is it:

viaro:

Please answer the damn questions and stop making silly excuses! When folks like you come to the end of yourselves, you want to blame your void of thought and reason on 'God'. What exactly is the 'core' of evolution that it backs up? How does your 'core' reason out how DNA came to be what it is in the first place?

Kay 17, if you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up. You make matters worse for yourself by pretending to talk about science and yet demontrate you have no clue what you're talking about but just trashing wildly about for your lose. If you're trying to buy time, I can give you all the clocks in the world to waste as much time as you want. . . until you can reason a bit more intelligently.

Kay 17:

aren't you aware of the theory of evolution. the process of survival and reproduction and transfer of a desirable trait to the next generation. dna holds the genes. don't you see the connection.

Lets even assume that the above hubris you wrote here is true doesn't common sense tell you that the DNA/genes were programmed to to transfer the desirable traits to the next generation And obviously a programme requires a programmer who in this case is the creator God.

Jesu remain a fraud

Jesu remain a fraud

Jesu remain a fraud

noetic15:


Your assertions are very FALSE. science is NOT a religion neither is it an alternative to religion. science and xtinaity are NOT mutually exclusive
There is nothing scientific that has been opposed by Christianity. . . . . . , for a start,evolution aint even science. Evolution is a FAITH concept, so also is atheism and other dogmatic claims that are ignorantly hidden under the banner of science.

True science is not at war with xtian beliefs.

   what are you spewing out? science is birth from evidence and facts not blind belief, both use different methods in finding answers to the phenomena around us. both are in conflict. it is almost impossible for science to strive under religion because science would be subjected to the prejudice of the existence of a creator and some demons. in the middle ages were religion was dominant, science achieved little growth. Issues like the shape of the earth, heliocentrism, stem cell, evolution depict the dogmatic nature of religion.  evolution has hard evidence. creation story any proof? lets start with the age of the earth. it is reasonable to have atheists because religion is based on belief and not reason or facts, (thats why there are thousands of religions), therefore there are some that have not fallen into the pit of ignorance. provide conclusive evidence of your God and why your religion is different from others.

Jesu died with two thieves

viaro:

Do I repeat my initial rejoinder to you? This is it:

Kay 17, if you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up. You make matters worse for yourself by pretending to talk about science and yet demontrate you have no clue what you're talking about but just trashing wildly about for your lose. If you're trying to buy time, I can give you all the clocks in the world to waste as much time as you want. . . until you can reason a bit more intelligently.

i have mentioned the function over and over again and its place in the theory of evolution, what else do you want? filling your head with those nonsense bible stories is no good to you.

There were 2 questions i read here that baffled me seriously . . .

From Kay 17: @ poster, why then did science take up the challenge to discover it? it more or less backs up the core of evolution. it proves the ability and form with which creatures can transfer advantageous traits to the next generation and with time make a big difference.  Stick to the 6 day creation story.

Its clear this poster did not exercise any intelligence in claiming that DNA "backs up evolution". We know that 99% of changes to DNA is deleterious to an organism, how then did DNA evolve from a tiny speck to generate multiple organisms today? Would the lack of certain genes not have been sufficient to wipe out man before we "evolved" to what we are today?

From Tudor: Scratch that. . . If we were so intelligently designed, why are there errors in transcription and replication of DNA which often lead to genetic disorders.

This was even worse. Alright lets look at it from an elementary stand-point . . . English is a language guided by a set of rules . . . but it isnt set in stone. I can basically put together 3 consonants, 2 vowels and make up my own word. For instance . . . the words "blog" did not exist in the english dictionary 20 yrs ago.

Such is the same with DNA . . . it is NOT a code set in stone but organisms have the advantage of beneficial mutations that help us adapt to changes in our environment. If there were NO errors in transcription, all of us would have EXACTLY the same DNA! One other thing Tudor fails to realise is that we have a fantastic DNA repair mechanism and more often than not cancer is a result of a failure in the ability to repair damaged DNA.

Kay 17:

what are you spewing out? [size=18pt]science is birth from evidence and facts not blind belief[/size], both use different methods in finding answers to the phenomena around us. both are in conflict. it is almost impossible for science to strive under religion because science would be subjected to the prejudice of the existence of a creator and some demons. in the middle ages were religion was dominant, science achieved little growth. Issues like the shape of the earth, heliocentrism, stem cell, evolution depict the dogmatic nature of religion. [size=18pt]evolution has hard evidence[/size]. creation story any proof? lets start with the age of the earth. it is reasonable to have atheists because religion is based on belief and not reason or facts, (thats why there are thousands of religions), therefore there are some that have not fallen into the pit of ignorance. provide conclusive evidence of your God and why your religion is different from others.

I am a scientist and i know this is NOT TRUE. Evolution is not even considered a "fact". Can you provide us the "hard evidence" supporting evolution?

KunleOshob:

Lets even assume that the above hubris you wrote here is true doesn't common sense tell you that the DNA/genes were programmed to to transfer the desirable traits to the next generation And obviously a programme requires a programmer who in this case is the creator God.

what is the purpose of a toad pls?

Kay 17:

 christianity claims that man was formed by God from sand and you posit that the presence of DNA and its programming features suggest a designer. but how does sand and programming instructions mix? but the presence of DNA fits exactly into the evolution theory. in the 15th century, in europe, it was thought that the looks of the midwife was going to be transferred to the baby. the role of DNA is to contain the genetic information. sounds better than sand and programming mixed together.

this is grossly stupid. For instance if DNA fits into evolution theory then how can you explain the fact that even though man and gorillas or cows share about 99% of their DNA we are so completely different? How does science explain the evolution of DNA?

Kay 17:

what is the purpose of a toad pls?

It is a critical part of the ecological food chain without which a lot of the organisms we depend on for survival would not exist. Would you also ask what the purpose of grass was?

Kay 17 seems to have run out of excuses or is busy ferreting on atheist websites for a response. This is why i always caution atheists to stop this false pretense that they truly understand science . . . at best they simply use bad science as a prop for their own personal decision to hate God.

davidylan:

I am a scientist and i know this is NOT TRUE. Evolution is not even considered a "fact". Can you provide us the "hard evidence" supporting evolution?

funny enough, religion is backed by facts, huh? if fact which of the religions? what kind of scientist are to believe creationism. evolution has well-documented studies and research unlike religion(koran or bible is sufficient), it is on the face of facts that conclusions are made.  mutations in dna composition of organisms is instrumental natural selection.

davidylan:

It is a critical part of the ecological food chain without which a lot of the organisms we depend on for survival would not exist. Would you also ask what the purpose of grass was?

so God bothered himself to construct such complex food structures when he can let manna rain from heaven. why did he keep away all this knowledge from us why is that science makes all these discoveries?  the bible educate you on ecology?

Kay 17:

funny enough, religion is backed by facts, huh? if fact which of the religions? what kind of scientist are to believe creationism. evolution has well-documented studies and research unlike religion(koran or bible is sufficient), it is on the face of facts that conclusions are made.  mutations in dna composition of organisms is instrumental natural selection.

What is the relevance of this drivel? Read the question you quoted . . . Evolution is not even considered a "fact". Can you provide us the "hard evidence" supporting evolution? Where did you provide the "hard evidence" supporting evolution as you stupidly claimed earlier?

What has "natural selection" to do with evolution? Going by Tudor's earlier claim that God should have made DNA perfect, natural selection would not even exist! You people are the most confused goons on earth.

Kay 17:

so God bothered himself to construct such complex food structures when he can let manna rain from heaven. why did he keep away all this knowledge from us why is that science makes all these discoveries?  the bible educate you on ecology?

What a foolish assertion. What part of my post where you responding to again with this irrelevancy? You claim that science is making "discoveries" but when we push you to tell us you come back light years later spinning worthless yarn.

What part of "ecology" do you even understand? The bible did not say too much on ecology but at least it taught me enough not to stupidly ask for the reason a toad was created unlike you "scientist".

Please next time make sure your responses are dead-on point, i for one am growing sick of your silly games. Its ok not to be knowledgeable about science, its NOT OK to try to pretend you understand science simply to use it to excuse your own godlessness.

Moderator/Seun, please add the word 'technology' to the thread's title on the front page. . . I only visited because I thought someone has found God's DNA. Its misleading!

There's God jare.
Otherwise how come i'm handsome and rich?

hackney:

There's God jare.
Otherwise how come i'm handsome and rich?

Aha! Here's another "proof!"

davidylan:

What is the relevance of this drivel? Read the question you quoted . . . Evolution is not even considered a "fact". Can you provide us the "hard evidence" supporting evolution? Where did you provide the "hard evidence" supporting evolution as you stupidly claimed earlier?

What has "natural selection" to do with evolution? Going by Tudor's earlier claim that God should have made DNA perfect, natural selection would not even exist! You people are the most confused goons on earth.

What a foolish assertion. What part of my post where you responding to again with this irrelevancy? You claim that science is making "discoveries" but when we push you to tell us you come back light years later spinning worthless yarn.

What part of "ecology" do you even understand? The bible did not say too much on ecology but at least it taught me enough not to stupidly ask for the reason a toad was created unlike you "scientist".

Please next time make sure your responses are dead-on point, i for one am growing sick of your silly games. Its ok not to be knowledgeable about science, its NOT OK to try to pretend you understand science simply to use it to excuse your own godlessness.

   why is that when you asked to prove your religion, i don't get an answer. machines evolve( i do not mean  biological), from simple to complex ones. how can you explain the existence of dinosaurs and their extinction and what role they played. at least your bible did not say so. why didn't the creator mention the millions of planets he created?  its your religion that has no facts to back it. science is a separate entity from religion.

why didn't your God tell us about this or its the devil's handiwork?

"why your God was creating billions of planets in space", this was how this bird was evolving to fufill different niches.

Kay 17:

   why is that when you asked to prove your religion, i don't get an answer. machines evolve( i do not mean  biological), from simple to complex ones. how can you explain the existence of dinosaurs and their extinction and what role they played. at least your bible did not say so. why didn't the creator mention the millions of planets he created?  its your religion that has no facts to back it.  science is a separate entity from religion.

Before you start moaning . . . why is it that all the times i have asked you to provide proof that your science truly has answers beyond creationism you hide behond "prove your religion"?

Before asking me how i can explain the existence of dinosaurs and their extinction can YOU use your science to show me how we evolved first to giant dinosaurs and then degraded to smaller organisms like us?

You say religion has no facts to back it up but WHERE ARE THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS TO BACK YOU UP?

Kay 17:

why didn't your God tell us about this or its the devil's handiwork?

Where is the proof that is indeed a reality? I see you're one of those empty heads who just latch unto the next web photo to claim science has proven evolution to be true right? What a joke.

Kay 17:

  "why your God was creating billions of planets in space", this was how this bird was evolving to fufill different niches.

Funny because what we see here is NOT A BIRD EVOLVING but different birds with strikingly similar phenotypes. So you'd also admit that monkeys, gorillas, apes and man are also from the same evolutionary tree?

Calling you a joke is even too ordinary.

evolution is progressive from a simple step to a complex one. hey davidylan, i'm still expecting your answer. but the all-knowing bible did not explain this vital story huh?  the part of dinosaur is in our story.

Religion says BELIEF and you will UNDERSTAND, Science come to say UNDERSTAND and you will BELIEF. Now I ask which is easier?

avsnet:

Religion says BELIEF and you will UNDERSTAND, Science come to say UNDERSTAND and you will BELIEF. Now I ask which is easier?

 hey, i did not say the earth was created in 6 days and the mighty one rested afterwards, from such a tiring feat. or that the earth was flat. or God was above us(Yuri Gagarin did not see anybody, maybe they were invisible), or global flood. i brought my evidence but dogma SHUT YOUR EYES. show me yours!