Replies

No, there's a lot of stuff there, but mostly it goes to prove evolution, not the other way around. The entire fabrication was of course concocted by some misguided fool who obviously doens't know what he's talking about. Evolution says that one species evolves into another? The casual (idiotic) observer may think so, but it's simply not true. Ooh! A picture of a butterfly! Butterflies have wings. They're too pretty to have not come from God. Lookee! A mRNA creating a protein! God's definitely making that happen. As a matter of fact, w/o his love we'd all fall apart this instant. As I understand it, that's actually an argument that has been used before by Christians. God makes the god go 'round.

IF YOU HAVEN'T REALY READ WHAT I JUST SAID: what that heap was all about was a big ol' hunk of SCIENCE. Somebody went through the trouble to go through a couple of textbooks, some websites. He proclaims to the world, I have learned, have tasted, and I find it good... in the eyes of God. Not good for Darwin. Do you realize that this guy is using science to explain something that is completely unscientific? God is not science. The guy's arguments are flawed because they don't make sense. Does he (I doubt that a woman could be so stupid or obsessive) realize that Darwin isn't the leading expert on Evolution today? He says that evolution is defunct in the present scientific community. He's a bloody idiot for saying that.

And what is all that shit about Newton? Where did that come from? A watch or a model are not comparable to life. Genes are just information, and can't do anything themselves? Have you ever touched the stuff? Have you ever engineered it? Have you ever knocked out the stuff from a mouse or yeast cell and replaced it w/ vectors creating from similarily engineered E. coli cells? I've done it, and I don't see god anywhere.

You are being irrational. You mock the idea of evolution, which states that complex systems like DNA came out of billions of years of coincidents, yet agree with the idea that they suddenly popped out of nothing? Excellent logic. Why would God have created DNA and cells and atoms and muons and strings? Why do ppl tend to become more religious in a stressful or dangerous situation? I'm sure that you've of soldiers who claimed that God protected them from a dangerous situation. Why would God care about anybody? He hasn't helped anybody like... almost ever. Why would he look down upon a soldier and say, you'll be safe because my magical hand is shielding you from the eyes of your enemies? God's existence has been proven. They put tape and sensors around the brains of priests in deep prayer, gurus in deep meditation, etc., and found a certain part of the brain that controls this stuff. Frontal lobe, personality. This whatever, religion. That's god right there.

Glad you brought up junk DNA. Why would that be there? They've found some weird shit in the Human genome. Like you said, much of it is useless. Is god not all-powerful? Did he make a crapload of mistakes when he was molding us from clay? Why would ppl have diseases like malaria or asthma or river blindness? It never mentions in the Bible that God got pissed at us and gave us diseases. Explain that.

As I've stated many times before, Evolution is seen every day. Mutations that create viable organisms occur every generation. My parents were mutants. Their parents, your parents, and so on. Show me two ppl who look exactly the same, same prints, same facial heat signiture, iris, and I'll crawl on my hands to kiss you feet. And also viruses and bacteria evolve all the time to counter immunization, medication. Part of this is through the use of vectors, but some of it is incorporated into the DNA. The selfish gene. Ever heard of that? It's a theory and also a book. Read it some time. It'll help you. Save yourself from further waste of time.

A picture of a butterfly! Butterflies have wings. They're too pretty to have not come from God.

Seems that while you call yourself 'seeker' you do not look for answers. There is a very good reason why I give the butterfly as proof that evolution is wrong. It is the 'double' birth of it. For one thing evolutionists claim that all embrionic development goes through the same steps as all the previous species in the supposed evolutionary tree. Clearly a species that is essentially born twice, does not do that. There is another reason for it, this second birth could not have arisen by the step by step gradual development proposed by evolution. If the birth process does not work, the organism dies so it obviously had to be correct from the get-go.

Do you realize that this guy is using science to explain something that is completely unscientific? God is not science.

The guy is me and you are absolutely wrong. God is science in the sense that all science is about the discovery of God's creation. If the universe was totally materialistic and operated in a totally stochastic manner, then science would be impossible. Science is about finding order in the universe and if the universe was of random origin no such laws, no such order would ever have been found.

Have you ever knocked out the stuff from a mouse or yeast cell and replaced it w/ vectors creating from similarily engineered E. coli cells? ...

[and in a later paragraph]... Glad you brought up junk DNA. Why would that be there? They've found some weird [expletive deleted for 'stuff'] in the Human genome. Like you said, much of it is useless.

Well, you just showed both that you are not a scientist and have a big problem with reading comprehension. I said:

When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

How you can say from the above that I am saying it is junk is beyond me. That you call yourself a scientist and not know that this DNA not in genes is not junk is a complete contradiction. Practically all the work on DNA being done the last few years is concerned with discovering what this non-coding DNA does, how it controls and regulates the actions of genes. So no, you are not a scientist and you can save yourself the time of posing as one.