Intelligent Design in Biology

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqESR7E4b_8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=3yNju1_-CMk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication

What about the lying creationist propaganda? -I have heard all that crap many times before; nothing new there.

And why do you give the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_replication link when I obviously know a lot more about DNA replication than you do?

And what has this got to do with evidence and my proofs that mutations can add new infomation?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Simple Presentation of DNA Replication by an Evolutionist

DNA Replication Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSILNKbhNLg&feature=related

DNA Replication Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=CRTXxXHBM3U&feature=endscreen

And this all evolved. Yeah, right???

That's not what I asked. I asked if you believe in the idea of DNA as the data storage media in life forms, does your god directly involve itself in all those DNA manipulations, mutations, whatever you choose to call it, does this god personally make the changes it feels it wants for a particular lifeform to go to the next level, whatever your god ultimately envisions? Each change, micro or macro, by your god?

Originally posted by sonhouse
That's not what I asked. I asked if you believe in the idea of DNA as the data storage media in life forms, does your god directly involve itself in all those DNA manipulations, mutations, whatever you choose to call it, does this god personally make the changes it feels it wants for a particular lifeform to go to the next level, whatever your god ultimately envisions? Each change, micro or macro, by your god?

No. He has already programmed it, just like we would program our sprinkler system to water our yard or something of that sort.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No. He has already programmed it, just like we would program our sprinkler system to water our yard or something of that sort.

So that all happened 6000 years ago and your god does not watch over each new mutation? If so, it is evolution that produces the changes now.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So that all happened 6000 years ago and your god does not watch over each new mutation? If so, it is evolution that produces the changes now.

God's program also prevents evolution from occurring. While the program allows for adaptations to take place, when errors that cause mutations occur, they are eventually eliminated.

Originally posted by RJHinds
God's program also prevents evolution from occurring. While the program allows for adaptations to take place, when errors that cause mutations occur, they are eventually eliminated.

But you said yourself god doesn't do hands on any more. There have been many new species since then, so your god is only involved when it comes to making new species? You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But you said yourself god doesn't do hands on any more. There have been many new species since then, so your god is only involved when it comes to making new species? You can't have it both ways.

God says He made birds to reproduce after their own kind. So a bird is only going to reproduce a bird. You might subdivide these kinds into other kinds of birds, such as eagles, sparrows, and woodpeckers. You may have few or many species or varieties of sparrows, but they are still within the same kind that God created them, even if you change their names.

Originally posted by RJHinds
God says He made birds to reproduce after their own kind. So a bird is only going to reproduce a bird. You might subdivide these kinds into other kinds of birds, such as eagles, sparrows, and woodpeckers. You may have few or many species or varieties of sparrows, but they are still within the same kind that God created them, even if you change their names.

So in other words there can be no new species.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So in other words there can be no new species.

You can name them whatever you want. However, one kind can not evolve into another kind because it is against the law of God. Living things do not evolve. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can name them whatever you want. However, one kind can not evolve into another kind because it is against the law of God. Living things do not evolve. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

It is a safe rationalization for you since evolution takes place on very long time scales so you are safe in you fantasy for now.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is a safe rationalization for you since evolution takes place on very long time scales so you are safe in you fantasy for now.

It seems to me that the evolutionists are the ones using long periods of time to rationalize their evolution fantasy. But I am aware of how good you liberal Democrates are in spinning political matters around, so I should not be surprised that you would do it in other areas as well.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems to me that the evolutionists are the ones using long periods of time to rationalize their evolution fantasy. But I am aware of how good you liberal Democrates are in spinning political matters around, so I should not be surprised that you would do it in other areas as well.

Why do you keep calling us “liberal Democrates”? Is that supposed to be a bad thing to be? Because it certainly isn't were I came from ( the UK ) where it is generally considered to be a complement to be called “liberal” and an insult to be called anything contrary to “liberal”.
Are you against freedom, democracy and openness to new ideas?

Originally posted by humy
Why do you keep calling us “liberal Democrates”? Is that supposed to be a bad thing to be? Because it certainly isn't were I came from ( the UK ) where it is generally considered to be a complement to be called “liberal” and an insult to be called anything contrary to “liberal”.
Are you against freedom, democracy and openness to new ideas?

In the USA a liberal is someone who believes in a big centralized federal government by taking away some of the powers originally given to the states by our U.S. Constituton. This results in a lot of wasteful spending of the taxpayers money. They also support many wasteful, giveaway social programs that require higher taxes. They believe in redistribution of wealth (taking from the rich and giving to the poor), which is done primarily by increasing the taxes on wealthier Americans. Their social, conservation, and environmental programs take top priority over economic considerations. Their policies sometime put undue burdens on companies trying to do business here. For example, they are not allowed to drill for oil in much of Alaska because it might effect the caribou or some other animal. The liberals in California have prevented the cutting of forests to conserve the trees. However, this has resulted in more forest fires, which has endangered peoples homes and caused great expense to fight the fires. They went through their liberal courts to get the water cut off to the farmland of many farmers in order to save some kind of little fish they claimed was in danger of going extinct and this caused our food prices to go up. They also support changing the definiton of marriage so gays can get married. They support strong gun controls for private citizens. They believe we can just print more money to spend the nation out of debt. I think you should get the idea now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
In the USA a liberal is someone who believes in a big centralized federal government by taking away some of the powers originally given to the states by our U.S. Constituton. This results in a lot of wasteful spending of the taxpayers money. They also support many wasteful, giveaway social programs that require higher taxes. They believe in redistribution o ...[text shortened]... can just print more money to spend the nation out of debt. I think you should get the idea now.

Well, I don't have a political opinion one way or the other that is relevant to these aspects of US politics.
So it would be totally inappropriate to call me a “liberal” with that US meaning.

Originally posted by humy
Well, I don't have a political opinion one way or the other that is relevant to these aspects of US politics.
So it would be totally inappropriate to call me a “liberal” with that US meaning.

Do your liberals there believe in the right of a woman to have an abortion of her choosing, with partial birth abortions included; and if she can not afford it the federal government should be required to pay for it?