The 'code' of DNA, the mapping of sequences of nucleic acids is the opposite of a consciously designed code, implied by the term 'language convention'. It is purely based on the different chemical affinity of different sequences of nucleic acids for particular peptides, which is precisely the sort of 'code' which could evolve naturally, IOW not a 'convention', rather based simply on chemical attraction. Human devised codes associate codes with what they code for in much more arbitrary or non-obvious ways, ie a convention.

RNA, close relative and probable precursor to DNA, has recently been shown to be able to form outside cells, in condition entirely likely to be present naturally on an early Earth.

The many ways in which DNA copying can go wrong, its IMPERFECTION, is well demonstrated, and is just what allows evolution to occur.

Thank you for further providing a clear example of the superficiality of your knowledge, your stubborn determination to misrepresent truth to fit your delusions.

 information is not part of matter and this would seem to be an area in which the Creationist holds several trump cards,  information and consciousness are not really part of matter,  dogmatic atheist chumps with chimp envy assume that there is no SUPREME SUPERNATURAL CREATOR beyond matter in space over time,  nor superior intelligence in the universe, yet 'information' obviously exists

Think about 'information' in this way: Suppose you had a super new computer but, for some reason, no operating system has been installed. So it has nothing like Windows or Linux which can render it useable for the average person. You would not be able to do much with that. But now let us assume that you go out and purchase a Windows operating system. You install that so the computer now has a program, or, 'intelligence' which effectively 'tells it' how to perform various tasks for you. So now it is supremely useable. A Windows O.S. is very large. I think that XP was about 3 gigabytes - that's big! I mean, that's a lot of information. But Vista is much bigger, I think that Vista Premium is closer to 15 gigabytes! I think they have made the very new Windows Seven a bit smaller. But those are huge programs of information. But if you weigh your computer after installing Windows XP or Vista, it won't even be a tiny bit heavier (as long as you remember to take out the CD after installation)! You have just installed a huge amount of information which, as we have noted, is very large in measure, yet you can't record any weight for it on the weighing scale. Ever wondered about that? Moreover, if after a week you delete the entire operating system program, you will not be able to make your computer even the tiniest bit lighter, it will still be the same weight. Why is this? It is because information itself is not matter and therefore it has no weight. No evolutionary scientist has an entirely adequate explanation for how 'information' arrives on the scene, or even for just what it is. Don't forget: these people must work within a 'closed' materialistic universe without knowledge  of YAHUWAH, or superior intelligence, therefore 'information' is problematic for them

Evolutionism needs atheism needs evolutionism needs atheism needs evolutionism.
Garbage in: Garbage out.

RNA by themselves would not constitute life, since it’s not enough just to join the bases (‘letters&rsquo together, but the sequence must be meaningful—and this sequence is not a function of the chemistry of the letters.

The Scientific American article :

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science’s current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a non-evolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. [SA 81]

yet another

bait’n’switch concerning the meanings of evolution. Anyway, that downplays the real problem. Evolution is a pseudo-intellectual justification for materialism, because it purports to explain life without God. So materialism would be in great trouble if evolution had a problem right at the start (‘chemical evolution&rsquo. After all, if the process can’t even start, it can’t continue.

"Our theory of evolution has become one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. No one can think of ways in which to test it.

Ideas either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity.

They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."

--L.C. Birch and P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967

 Fundamentals in Science

We all know some of the basic laws of science even if we could not write their mathematical formulations down on paper. For instance, we all know that you will never find a river, or a stream, which flows uphill for a few miles before descending in a waterfall. Okay, the waterfall is no problem, we all know about those, but you could not have a river running uphill for several miles in order to reach that point. Why? Because it breaks the law of gravity! Rivers, all on their own, don't run uphill, you would need some sort of pumping system. Commonly a river will rise in a mountainous area and will gradually meander it's way down to the sea, so it works with the law of gravity.
To say that Man has evolved through a gradual process of evolution is incorrect because a law of science is being violated (just as 'the law of gravity' was violated in our river running uphill model), we will see the connection later.

We must remember that science only works through theories, speculations and hypotheses. You can always test these against the laws of nature where that is possible.
In our world, there are three realities for scientists to ponder over. They are:
1. Life.
2. Matter.
3. Information.

To take the second of those first, the laws of matter are well understood, but the understanding on information is very very new. Little has been written by evolutionists because they are always struggling not to acknowledge a superior intelligence in the universe. So there is much which is not understood by scientists. Regarding 'life,' the only law of nature here which we are aware of is this: Life can only come from life. Nobody doubts that, it is a well-established law. To digress for just one moment, the evolutionist is just as aware of that law as anybody else; they fully agree that life can only come from life. Despite this, because of the materialist foundation of evolution, they will nevertheless insist that - right at the beginning - life did come from non-life. It's amazing really to consider that fact.

If, for a moment, you can imagine somebody constructing a walking robot, it would have to have some clever working parts; legs, for instance, which could move back and forth and which could bend, maybe you could even make it clever enough to climb a few steps all on it's own. But it would need a small computer with it's 'walking program' to be installed on it. With a good program it might work fine, after a certain fashion. But if you deleted the program on the walking robot's mini computer it could not move any more. Again, after deleting the information on the program, the walking robot would be no lighter in weight - you have deleted information, not matter. But if you stumbled over it as you went to make a cup of coffee and broke one of it's legs and you then decide to throw the 'leg' away until you make a new one, you will reduce it's weight since the 'leg' is matter. So it will then be lighter in weight.
In like manner, if you could delete a person's DNA, it is doubtful you would even make that person a few ounces lighter because the DNA is just solid information, yet there is so much of it that if unravelled it, it could stretch from earth to the moon! So it always helps to keep the distinction between matter and information clear. Again, science pretty much understands matter but it has very little understanding on 'information,' because evolution restricts it to a material, godless universe.

two kinds of laws of nature:

a. Material Entities.
Energy, power, electricity.

b. Non-material Entities.
Consciousness, information.

Laws of Nature are universally valid, whether in Europe, America, Africa or on the moon - it makes no difference where you are.
Laws of Nature do not vary in time.
Laws of Nature are simple.
There are no exceptions.
Laws of Nature help us to determine beforehand whether a process is, or is not, possible. This is why, when we look again at our earlier suggestion that a river could run uphill for several miles, we see that it is impossible because these laws of nature are 'constants.'

Scientific Definition of Information

Imagine this: You are looking at a chart of hieroglyphic symbols before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone. You would have had no interpretation, you would be hopelessly confused. In fact, this was the way it was until the 1799 discovery of the Rosetta Stone. The discovery of that stone tablet enabled us to be able to interpret hieroglyphics. But before then if we were shown a chart of those symbols we would not know whether or not that chart was 'information.' Since that point we can now say that it is information, causing us to interpret a previously hidden language. Before then, you would be unsure, one might apply a very loose label of 'information' to it but it would not be information in the sense of imparting real understanding regarding what the writer of those ancient symbols had in mind.

Any definition in science must be very precise and very clear. It must have sharp, distinct borders that includes the subjects of the definition and excludes everything else. For example the definition of energy in physics is stated very carefully. In the same manner, information is carefully defined in science.
Within natural law, information includes five levels:
a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
c. Semantics (meaning).
d. Pragmatics (action).
e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).

With Apobetics, full understanding has been imparted from the information sender to the information recipient.
If you have those five points then you have an entire information system.

If we find all these five levels in an unknown system (as with the Rosetta Stone illumination of Egyptian hieroglyphics), then we can be absolutely sure that this is a true information system. This is then no longer a matter of speculation but the case is proved. When 'information' is established, intelligence comes with it; that is the bit that evolutionists don't like, and worry about, of course.

ten laws of nature about information:

a. Anything material, such as physical processes, cannot create anything non-material.
b. Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
(The idea is creeping into many books that information is a part of matter but that is totally incorrect, it is completely separate from matter).
c. Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission.
(Your mind, 'spirit,' intellect and consciousness need your brain).
d. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
e. There can be no information without a code.
f. All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
g. The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires information.
h. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender.
i. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source.
(Interestingly, in most cases we cannot see the information sender. In a library you will see thousands of books but not the writers of those books! When you listen to music, you do not see the composer).
j. Information comprises the non-material foundation for all technological systems, works of art or biological systems.

Does the code found within DNA fit into the definition domain of information? Yes, in quite a major way, suffice to say that our human DNA is rich in information cannot be anything but a huge understatement: in fact, it is the highest density of information which it is ever possible to find anywhere on earth, and - - if unravelled, a person's human DNA would stretch all the way to the moon. This is the 'information system' which every single human being has - without it, we could not 'work' or function in any way.

All Five Levels of Information Must be Present:

a. Statistics (signal, number of symbols).
b. Syntax (set of symbols, grammar).
c. Semantics (meaning).
d. Pragmatics (action).
e. Apobetics (purpose, result, the highest level of information).
Again, these are scientific laws. From this we can draw not weak, but strong conclusions!

1. There Must be a Sender.
Since the DNA code of all life forms is clearly within the definition domain of information, we conclude that there must be a sender! If somebody should claim that life comes without a sender, we can say that this is a totally wrong idea! Conclusion? Atheism is a wrong idea. Again, the law of nature is the highest level of science!

From the conclusions about the laws of nature and about information, what can we say about the sender? Psalm 14:1.

2. The Sender is Omniscient.
Since the density and complexity of the dna information is billions of times greater than man's present technology, we must conclude that the sender is supremely intelligent and has all knowledge. John 16:30.

3. The Sender Must be Purposeful and All-Powerful (Omnipotent).
Since the sender must have:
a. encoded (stored) the information into the DNA molecules,
b. constructed the molecular bio machines required for the encoding, decoding and synthesising processes, and,
c. designed all the features for the original life forms, then we can say that the sender must be purposeful and omnipotent. This isn't negotiable - it is obvious! Revelation 1:8.

4. The Sender Must be Eternal.
That supreme sender must have infinite information. He knows everything at the moment, but He must also know everything about the past and the future too. So He must be eternal in existence. Psalm 90:2.

5. The Sender Must be a Spirit Being.
Since information is a non-material fundamental entity and cannot originate from the material, the Sender must be a Spirit. John 4:24.

Let us again remind ourselves that we have arrived at this point by using scientific laws! Who is the Sender? Science can reveal God but cannot go beyond that, but the Bible does. Ten times it says, 'And God said...' in Genesis 1. Also see Psalm 33:9. John 1:1,3.

We can now use the laws of nature to go further:

6. The 'Mass and Energy Alone' Theories About the Origin of the Universe Must Be Wrong!
Since information is a Non-Material Entity, we must conclude that the universe itself is not composed solely of mass and energy! From this we can say that the 'big bang' model is erroneous. They say that at the beginning there was only matter and energy. That cannot be correct. Energy and matter are only material entities, and the laws of nature state that matter cannot create a non-material entity. This world is full of information, just consider the millions of books which have been written, but matter cannot produce information (as we have seen), so the idea that there was only matter and energy at the beginning is bound to be a flawed idea, there must also have been a non-material source of information! This is a very quick and scientific way to refute the 'big bang' model.

7. All Theories and Concepts About Biological and Chemical Macro-Evolution Are Erroneous!
Since biological information originates only from an Intelligent Sender, and all theories of biological and chemical evolution require that the information must originate solely from mass and energy, it therefore follows that all theories or concepts of biolological and chemical evolution are incorrect!
Evolution is an impossible process because well-established laws of nature must be broken in order for it to happen. We can state this from the highest level of science. It is for the evolutionist to falsify us by proving the initial origin of information from the non-material. It cannot be done!

So all concepts of chemical and biological evolution are refuted - yes, refuted - by the laws of nature on information and these same laws uphold the belief that the universe and all life has an origin through THE ALLMIGHTY Creator YAHUWAH

       Haha, exaclty. 

I am on this forum to exachange knowledge, ideas, and have good discussions.  I always post open invitations to reasonable theists to have reasonble discussions.  You on the other hand are a bafoon, you represent every venomfangx moron, posting giant copied walls of garbage followed by arrogant and agressive comments.  I have no intention of waisting 1 more mintue disussing anything with a blatant babbeling bafoon, you do a great job making yourself look stupind on your own. 

 Have a nice day.

atheists need evolution needs atheists need evolution etc....  garbage in garbage out

Below are the basic tenets of the Theory of Evolution (for both Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism) as published in National Geographic Magazine:

The gist of the concept is that small, random, heritable differences among individuals result in different chances of survival and reproduction ' success for some, death without offspring for others ' and that this natural culling leads to significant changes in shape, size, strength, armament, color, biochemistry, and behavior among the descendants. Excess population growth drives the competitive struggle. Because less successful competitors produce fewer surviving offspring, the useless or negative variations tend to disappear, whereas the useful variations tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout a population.

National Geographic November 2004 Vol 206 No 5---------->they should change their name to National Pornographic Fagazine

Every Helpless Baby Born Proves Darwin Was Wrong

The Theory of Evolution in a nutshell is "Survival of the fittest." But most mammals and birds give birth to helpless babies - instead of strong and fit ones. Neither Darwinism nor Neo-Darwinism can explain infantile helplessness. Every baby that is born contradicts Evolution Theory and this is a fatal flaw.

Darwin Purposely Overlooked Helpless Babies To Save His Theory

Infantile Helplessness Busts The Theory of Evolution

Here is why:

Every Baby Born Helpless Proves Darwin Was Wrong

According to the Theory of Evolution, within each species, the babies with "better genes" that help them to be born the most fit and self-reliant would survive the best, breed the most, and pass on their better genes to their offspring. Therefore each succeeding generation would have babies that are increasingly self-reliant and fit until the species would ultimately breed babies that are completely self-reliant at birth. Mammals are the highest form of life and Darwinism would predict that all mammals give birth to babies that are totally fit and not in need of help from the mother.

But the opposite it true.

All mammals and birds have offspring that are handicapped with infantile helplessness.

Infantile helplessness contradicts Darwinism so fundamentally that unless Darwinists can explain it, Creationists have the right to say Darwinism is disproved by the facts of life.

On the other hand, infantile helplessness supports Logical Creationism, which believes that the world is the purposeful creation of a loving ELOAH YA AM. One purpose is to teach humanity how to love selflessly and help us to be protective and gentle. Having helpless babies assists us to learn selfless love, compassion and self-sacrifice. Every parent has made sacrifices for his or her child and this is as YAHUWAH intended it.

YAHUWAH knew that there would come a Theory of Evolution and He made certain to create life on Earth in such a way that there would be major discrepancies between real life and the false theory. YAHUWAH is the Master of timing and this is the time He chose to bust Darwin .

The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Predicts that the Most Advanced Species Would Produce the Most Self-reliant Offspring

How did life begin on Earth? And how come there is such a diversity of species on this planet?

As far as Darwinists are concerned, their answer is that life began by chance, with the simplest form of bacteria they call prokaryotes, and the prokaryotes "evolved" into more complex forms of life, which in turn then diversified into all the 8 million species we now have on this planet.

How does a Darwinist explain how, after 4 billion years of evolution, we end up with helpless babies'?

The fact is as we climb the evolutionary tree of complexity we find diminishing fitness on the way up because of the survivability of the babies.

Darwinists cannot explain this. It is a FLAW IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. And because this flaw concerns the very essence of the theory (reproduction and survivability, which are the foundations of evolution theory) the FLAW IS FATAL TO THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

The Theory of Evolution is Wrong: It Would Predict that Babies of Each Species Would Become Increasingly More Fit From One Generation to the Next

CLEARLY  it is easy to understand that the bullshit religious pagan concept /Theory of Evolution would lead us to predict that over time, each generation of babies of a species would become more and more "fit" because being fitter as a baby would be a "useful variation" that would "tend to be perpetuated and gradually magnified throughout the population". Also, the more "fit" the baby, the greater the "chances of survival and reproduction" and the extra fitness would be passed on to the children of the fittest babies.

Therefore, according to Darwinism, each new generation of a species would give birth to offspring that are more fit than the offspring of the previous generation. And this would be "magnified" over and over. The result would be that over time, each species would have offspring that are totally self-reliant. And there would be no species that gave birth to unfit offspring

According to Darwinism, certainly after hundreds of millions of years of evolution, there should not be any species left that gave birth to helpless offspring.

But Darwin was wrong, which is why most mammals and birds give birth to fragile babies that are totally helpless. The fact is that most baby mammals and birds are helpless and fragile. There is no way Darwinism can explain infantile fragility. Therefore THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS FATALLY FLAWED.

We people of faith in YAHUWAH as ALMIGHTY CREATOR are not the only ones who thought about this. Evolution scientists know this, but they have suppressed the truth in a worldwide Darwin Conspiracy.

Hey, I guess you're right. I should probably tell all the biologists to ... well, just stop what they're doing. Clearly, they're all wasting time.

So ... Nylon-eating bacteria just aren't enough for you, right? You would need a bacterium to turn into a weasel before you'd be happy, is what I'm reading. Why is it always about magic with you guys?

PS - how could I *possibly* take you seriously? It's a stretch of the imagination I can't make.

 http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119

Evolution is a scientific fact. it happens, it has been observed, tested and proven. I know that all of the tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers on the subjects are probably over your head so go get a fifth grade biology textbook and read their explanation. you don't understand even the most basic premises of the theory so how do you expect to be able to raise valid objections or understand the explanations of those who do understand it. You are wasting everybody's time by stubbornly repeating the same creationist slogans even when people give you legitimate scientific evidence that literally directly contradicts your claims. try to understand the theory before you criticize it.

seriously?

mind over wrote:or I guess

or I guess you are refering to dipshit atheist monkey wannabe biologists who are fearful of losing their humanist agenda based jobs that pay a pretty penny to never question lies and to perpetuate a stupid wannabe religion for atheists chumps with chimp envy in denial like you.

Wow.-----------

--->>>>>yeah that is a typical ignore and rant retreat  from your atheist elitest mentality

nylon eating bacteria? are seriosuly gonna use that as you case for billions of years of bullshit?

So that would be a "no", then.   ----------

---> you are very deluded like dawkins and darwin and charles lyle and every deauche atheist closet pagan in denial on this irrational response fraud of a thread.  of course your typical example of proofs are always things you don't understand about information and matter being separate things, you chump with chimp envy.

NO I would need a weasel to turn into a dipshit atheist human being like you.

I don't know how to do that. You seem very angry about it, though.  ----

---> No not about it, rather  about the blind faith you seem to be in denial of while proping it up as something based on reality observed through the scientific method. which you seem to be afraid of. like all the chumps who have yet to demstrate a single aspect of my challenge. to prove your atheist religion of evolution is not just a man made pagan concept based in humanist lies . 

as far as your little case for the nylon bacteria,  tell  me, is it something other than a bacteria? because it has the ability to eat garbage?  it is obviously still a bacteria with the ability to adapt not to evolve into something new  as in a dumb ass atheist chump like you. despite how much imaginary time you want to include to futher your dementia.

Nope, it's still bacteria. We give things names, so sometimes things that are different (e.g. finches and sparrows) still evolve, despite the fact that we still call them "birds". Our names for them have no bearing on whether or not they're evolving.------

-----> poor atheist monkey wannabe siiting in a tree staring at the ground like a dumb ass with glee.  you need to stop and clear the methane in your mind bubble.  despite your interpretation of the data it does not prove that birds with the already present ability to adapt are in fact as you claim in you delusion to be evolving.  a finch gets a small beak then gets a big beak  and then a small beak -  that is what darwin failed to grasp as  variation  within a limit not evolution from finch to dumb ass atheist  closet pagan with a vendetta against the true CREATOR.  your flaw is the same as that deauche bag darwin. He is a mortal fool with a petty bitter attitude as an ingrate with satans feather in his cap.

PS - how could I *possibly* take you seriously? It's a stretch of the imagination I can't make.------->>> yeah thats right in my case against you.  you seem to be fine with putting faith in things you cannot see. as long as you are not held accountable by a supreme being who created you.

It's an interesting idea, this being that created me. It seems to be the only thing you don't question.----

----------->>>>> again you ignore and rant like the petty humanist pawn you are.  I pitty you and the path you are on in the time you have that is measured.

the foundation of science was to grasp all of creation and thus the CREATOR through our perception of matter in space over time. what you are doing with your reasoning in atheism is depending on lies/evolution as your foundation for your worldview.

in science the goal is to excersise our free will and find our way  as we spend the limited time to learn the to measure the knowledge of good and evil.  you think death is an easy way to compensate for your pessimistic attitude towards a CREATOR for your sake I will tell you HIS NAME IS YAHUWAH and you can do your own research on that.  The actual uncurrupted scriptures teach that we are to question everything, so your petty rebuttal is a chump attempt to prove yourself worthy of being mature.

YAHUWSHUA which means YAHUWAH IS SALVATION was the the person who said it in so many ways.

NOOOOO, it is atheist monkey wannabes raised on billions of years and the stupid dogma of  rocks turning into humans that can design machines and  pc s that can process information that have no weight yet nowhere in evolution do we see examples of anything found in nature to be possibly man made we do find things in nature that supass everything manmade as far as machines and examples of what know is clearly information imprinted on matter .

your problem is that you are taught never to question your pagan man made religion of evolution over unseen atheist imagined years which claims there is no need for a creator in the reality of all creation. WHY? because you are a peasant with your attitude. you are considered a spiritual goat. you refuse to open your eyes because you are spiritually blind, probably through no fault of your own but your life testimony will be your judgment.

its easy to look into space with a set of scieintific criteria for what is considered evidence for intelligence yet here on earth you are a living zombie.

I suppose you think contortionists are not human becasuse they are deformed. we see different kinds of humans  so tell which kind is the one that proves evolutioon? the the midget? the black the white asian?  or perhaps you like darwin are a racists asshole?  or maybe you think abortion is not murder?

You have many concerns. I do believe that contortionists are humans. In fact, even people with birth defects are still human, despite their mutation. Sometimes mutations don't work out for the best.------

-------->> no again you are boring yourself to death with your ignore and rants mentality.

there is a reason you refuse to accept about aging sickness suffering , death and decay, found in all creation, as in all things are clearly seen as winding down. just as certain scientist had admitted there is a switch in the human dna that causes aging and their goal is to shut it off or reverse it in their quest the the anti aging holy grail.

the point is all the defects you so smugly refer to are for a good reason above you capcity to grasp in your current state of being a deauch bag atheist chump like every ranting atheist on this thread who have yet to address my  simple posted challenge based in common sense apllied through the scientific method you seem to lay claim to as a prize belonging to an elitest atheist bitchnuggets only club.. oh but then you may say with pride  there is no journal peer review to back up the interpretation of the data that states the simplest organsim is still a completes sum of its  mechanical parts and complete set of information installed at a molecular level beyond any tech known to man in modern day arrogant networking hype with of progress.

or that because some humans can eat metal ceramic acid shit  etc.... you probably will call that evolution too? you must be so deluded you dont see what a drone you really are?

Well if I were deluded, then by definition, I wouldn't see what I was (provided that was the nature of my delusion).

you fail to grasp the difference between information and matter as well and the difference between spirit and flesh.

I see. You appear to have complete knowledge of everything I understand without asking. It's quite a feat.---

-------------it does appear that my knowledge of matter in space over time surpasses your petty materialistic impotence.

you must be pretty high on your atheist closet pagan religion of evolution based education to think any common person cannot tell you where its at in eternity. problem for you is you rely on death and and not the promise of eternal life and that is to your own demise sadly.

you clearly show the capacity of your complete knowledge with your ignore and rant posts while you claim  my simple challenge is beneath  your elitest richturd dawkins  agenda. its bad enough with all the stupid paganism in the world that to top it off we have people like you pretending your science fiction is not a religion.

a large proportion of people like you, including many leading scientists, believe that all plants and animals, including the incredibly complex brains of the people who make watches, motor cars, etc., were not designed by an intelligent supernatural intelligent being but rather came from an unintelligent evolutionary process.

Not exactly true. We tend to be very vague about what we call "intelligent". The evolutionary process has certainly produced some interesting things, yes.---

---->>>  yeah when it comes to demonstating facts through intelligence you  are very vague    and the evolutionary process is nice term that means nothing in the real world of progress and growth. sure people use it in every lingo now because of all the media brainwashing but so what a we can say the first electric  car evolved  100's of years ago from a horse drawn buggy  to a air polluting internal combustion scam by a bunch of humanist drones for satan.

 or then there is the radio that evolved into a 3d tv  or better yet a human evolves into a member of the X-men thanks to anti cancer surviving  mutations etc......super deauche/ wolf man

at the end of the day you are a fool to thinks that non living matter naturally formed the human brain by chance over billions  of atheist years but could not design a everything  else that the brain designed  through unnatural means.

And yet, the same designer screws up, and we have birth defects. Also, what's an "atheist year"?-------------

------------------------ahh finally we get to your true feelings on the issue of why darwin and people like you still piss and moan about scrathed knees and unsatifactory freckles and being short or tall or missing a heart like the tin man  or in your case a straw man minus a brain with truespirit of  intellect for reality

as I stated  earlier  the reason for screw up is justified along with the fact that will are living on time scale that is measured meaning the person who wrote the measurment knows when and how and why you will check whereas you can only read the measuement already imprinded on your material shell

an atheist year is the unobserved atheist version of unit of measurement for unseen time applied in the pagan concept of the equation for the origin of life and information from nothing which you like to speclaute  can do anything and sometime people like you forget yourselves and actually refer to it as  your mother as in mother nature did this  or created that  or designed this or that . the truth exposes you as a chump in an atheist cesspool.

tell me do you have a problem with pro murder? regarding unwanted pregnancy? I doubt it!   you should research the stats on abortion and then the reality of the execution methods used by scumbag atheists with no compulsion for their human genocide under protection of the so called law of the land.

and then research the mental state of the women who realize the full reality of their selfish act for self preservation.

funny how deauche bags who spread the lie of survival of the fittest offspring fail to teach the fact that yes primitive lifeforms like lizards seem to have it figured out with offspring being fully iindependant at birth while a more superior life form  the mammal in our case humans are born completly helpless in need of selfless love , compassion self sacrifice  and protection semm to contradict the basic foundation of your whole stupid dogma of evolution through selection bring out a superior offspring reaching an apex in design.

since you failed to meet my posted challenge  I accept your failure  as a sign of defeat on behalf of all humansit chumps on this thread as well as richturd dawkins and every other scumbag  who preaches pagan concepts of origins from the time of babylon and before that teach to worship creation and not the creator.

please keep up the intelligent design in your futile quest to prove to need for intelligent design

yeah, come on, mods, pull the plug on this bullshit.  or just what exactly do you have to do to get a troll badge?  hell, if that jackass REVLyle has one, this dumbass should have one.  at least rev is more or less coherent and doesn't keep using the same toddler-esque, sing-songy insults over and over.

i swear to god, this guy reminds me more and more of a guy who was booted out of the christianity forum on amazon about 3 years ago.  if it is indeed him, the insults have changed but his method of delivery hasn't.  perhaps he's gone a tad crazier in the meantime, but that's to be expected when you've developed an enormous persecution complex after having been hounded out of every forum you've ever participated in.

Mindless Fascist Matter is still here and no Troll badge to speak of? I'm amazed that with his walls of cut-n'-paste banditry, he has yet to earn the Troll badge!

Dude, all your "rock solid" arguments against evolution, like "why are babies not already big and strong the instant they are born?" just show how little you understand about the subject. If you had even the most basic of science educations, you would realize how stupid that sounds.

And really, you need to find better sites to copy-n'-paste in they're entirety then ones that have been long shown to be completely ridiculous.

So, in closing, Mindless Fascist Matter Troll, you are just succeeding in making all religious people look like morons. Any religiously questioning people coming here and seeing what you have to say, they will soon realize how stupid religion and it's followers are, and BOOM, the world has another atheist! You don't realize how many atheists are around because of the insanity of people like you. THANK YOU!

I vote for a troll badge for mind w/o matter.  He contributes nothing but name-calling and endless drivel.  Thanks in advance.

Note: I can't apply a "troll" badge. I think that takes Ultra Mod Powers or something. I'm still trying to see if this guy is the ultimate inverse Turing test. I'm pretty sure I could write an algorithm for these responses.

I guess it's true - I'm not totally shocked that you both believe in magic AND believe that I have some kind of agenda.

I don't get the "closet pagan" bit, but okay. I think it's spelled "douche", if that's what you were going for. My "proof" was always simpler than that: I don't believe you. I don't believe you that there's a Magic Dad. That's all. There's no proof, you're just not convincing me.

As for evolution, we have lots of evidence to support the description of the process. If you want to ignore that, that's your prerogative.

The whole point of the scientific method is avoiding blind faith. I'm not sure what you think I'm afraid of, but it takes quite a long time to do a degree in biology, so perhaps you might consider that our answers can't be as comprehensive as you might like, for lack of both space and time.

Then I suppose the variation between us and chimps isn't all that significant after all. We are, after all, primates.

So which lies should we focus on clearing up?

That's what's known as a "run-on sentence". They're fine in Latin, but in English, they just confuse people. Try to avoid them.

Who told you rocks turned into humans?

True that I am "spiritually blind". I've never experienced anything that would make me think that there's a spirit.

Again with the run-on sentences. It's very difficult to understand what you mean. It was also difficult to understand your original "challenge", for the same reason.

You're going in a spiral at this point: I'm seeing a lot of cut-and-paste. In future, you could write shorter sentences, and get better answers.

Here's a fact: the first electric car was made sometime in the 1830s. Do you think I'm brainwashed for accepting that as fact?

I have no idea how you've managed to get satan, cars and a comic book character into your ideas about design, but bravo.

Well Darwin's dead, so I'm sure he's not moaning about anything. Or do you believe in ghosts?

I don't think there was any content in that sentence.

It's an operation. Do you weep at the loss of every skin cell that drops from your body? Every hair? Those cells died, after all. 

Maybe you should ask your creator about judging others. You seem to like to judge others.

Uh, yeah. You have a nice week, too.

Huh?

It's semantics. For convenience, I'm going to use the same definition of 'information' that you're using; that's what I meant by "assuming." Isn't this the definition that you're using? I was asking you to define information, and you wrote, "information comes from a source of knowledge which implies a living source," in post #81.

So, you're defining information as knowledge from an intelligence. Correct?

Um, okay, why is information necessary for evolution?

No? They don't add more base pairs?

For now, I'm just asking you whether or not insertions and duplications can add more base pairs. Adenine with thymine or cytosine with guanine.

So, yes, they do add more base pairs?

Okay, so you're saying organisms couldn't have evolved because they are so complex that even humans haven't made them yet?

Nothing needs to be changed to produce evolution?

Okay. Then, what would God need to change about the genome to make it seem like evolution was happening?

Couldn't God have designed the process of evolution to create all the organisms? 

For this discussion, I'm only interested in trying to explain evolution, not abiogenesis.