We Never Know
No Slack
If anything I agreed with you when I said "It's all the same God though it does seem some have different versions.".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The flaws in Intelligent design
- Thread starter Bear Wild
- Start date
If anything I agreed with you when I said "It's all the same God though it does seem some have different versions.".
Jollybear
Hey
Ok, so, what is the result of the nucleotides ATCG?
We Never Know
No Slack
Do you think that if we don't know something's it means ID? We have advanced so much in the last 100 years that we know very much but not every thing. Yet in over 2000 years you can't come up with one piece of testable scientific evidence for God.
I was not talking about you.
I would point out that you claimed I have attacked creationists on here, but that is not true. If anything could be said, I have challenged them on their claims, pointed out their logical fallacies and had fun pointing out the fact that some of them have made me and my beliefs the topic of the thread.
I did not accuse you of twisting his words. Repeating that will not make it come true.
Actually, I am only just now seeing that post. I had to attend to some personal matters and stepped away for a bit.
I was referring to the new claim that I now believe God is a metaphor. How that was derived from what you posted, I have no idea, but so far, links to what is actually posted here and the statements of happy bruins are pretty thin to non-existent.
We Never Know
No Slack
Now that's funny. You replied to his post he made to me saying his words have already been twisted, he took up for you, agreed with you, gave a post that he thought you were talking about and now you say you weren't talking about me.
Do everyone favor and explain who you were talking about.
Last edited:
We Never Know
No Slack
There is the confusion. Thank you
We Never Know
No Slack
I said attacking because you said "I do not feel threatened by you or your questions, but it is clear that you only have attacks on me your argument. It is pretty childish, but what I would expect from you and creationists in general."
Mainly the last sentence where you seem to think creationists are childish.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The construction of various proteins. I don't see any evidence of an intelligence.
Jollybear
Hey
My question "what is the purpose of the nucleotides ATCG?" is not designed to expose a lack of knowledge and therefore place God into the gap. The question is designed because we DO KNOW the purpose of the nucleotides. They ARE the code instructions for building us.
Theres lots of evidence for God. The one wer talking about now, is just one of many of those evidences. DNA is such an evidence. The test is in it being a code. From our experience codes only come from intelligence and not from unguided forces.
There is not one proven example of codes coming from none intelligence.
Jollybear
Hey
Correct. The nucleotides code for different proteins that then serve different functions in the body.
But not all proteins are the same or serve the same function, hence the nucleotides form CODONS (aka, CODE, AKA, INSTRUCTIONS) that tell the cell what kind of protein to make.
Check this out > Biology for Kids: DNA and Genes
"The DNA code is held by the different letters of the nucleotides. As the cell "reads" the instructions on the DNA the different letters represent instructions. Every three letters makes up a word called a codon. A string of codons may look like this:
ATC TGA GGA AAT GAC CAG
Even though there are only four different letters, DNA molecules are thousands of letters long. This allows for billions and billions of different combinations."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is circular reasoning based upon an unsubstantiated claim. That is why it is best to use neutral language.
Jollybear
Hey
Are there codons in the nucleotides?
I cannot control what others do and not having read those posts yet, I do not know if he saw something there, but the fact remains, I was not referring to you specifically.
I just did.
It might be, but how have you demonstrated that it is evidence for God.
All I have seen from you, ever, are arguments from incredulity, arguments from ignorance and ad hominem arguments. Nothing you have done links DNA, to divine creation. You simply saying that is just a claim and it does not follow that a claim is substantiated by merely making it.
Based on how you constructed your question and borrowing you revising this in a response as part of some tactic, there are no codons in the nucleotides.
Jollybear
Hey
Its not might be, the nucleotides make up codons, which are the instructions for building different proteins.
This is the evidence of intelligence. I logically INFER intelligence from these codons.
Thats it, that is not incredulity!
All false.
I made it and substanciated it.
Check this out > Biology for Kids: DNA and Genes
"The DNA code is held by the different letters of the nucleotides. As the cell "reads" the instructions on the DNA the different letters represent instructions. Every three letters makes up a word called a codon. A string of codons may look like this:
ATC TGA GGA AAT GAC CAG
Even though there are only four different letters, DNA molecules are thousands of letters long. This allows for billions and billions of different combinations."
Jollybear
Hey
Are the nucleotide combinations codons, yes or no?
That is a statement of fact. These same tactics have been used by creationists in discussions I have had before. The tactics are pretty childish. They are obvious and transparent too. Are you going to suggest now that I am claiming that creationists are transparent? It would fit what I actually posted about as well as your claim that I am calling creationists childish, when the object was their tactics which included straw man arguments.
Do you have something to discuss with me in relation the OP or is it just going to be about me and what you think I am saying as opposed to what I actually wrote?