> >>>>>> "Protein-coding genes make up just 1.5 percent of our
> >>>>>> genome. The rest includes a lot of what is thought to be
> >>>>>> useless junk with no discernible function."
> >>>>> No, the so called "Junk DNA" has *now been decoded*.
> >>>>> http://www.p2l.it/1fs
> >>>>> "They have determined that junk DNA is actually used to regulate gene
> >>>>> expression. Or, junk DNA is really on-off switches for protein encoding
> >>>>> DNA. ENCODE project results were published by Nature, Scientific
> >>>>> American, New York Times and others." http://www.p2l.it/1fs
> >>>>> So the truth is out, that our Creator did not make "junk" when He created
> >>>>> the DNA for all living things..after all.
> >>>> Your evidence for this is, what, exactly?
> >>> Here --> http://www.p2l.it/1fs
> >>>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
> >>> If you want the truth, then renounce the falsehood about
> >>> the supposedly junk DNA. The truth is, that our Creator
> >>> did not make "junk" when He created the DNA required
> >>> for life in all things, plant or animal.
> >> Do you ever read what you post?? Read the.. article and
> >> you will see that there is still questionable DNA.
> > Yes, there are still some things you don't understand.
> > But there is enough to know that DNA is evidence of
> > a creation by a Creator. That is the important thing to
> > understand, Ralph.
> If that is what you brought away from the actual article, I think I see
> your problem.
> There are fence posts with more intellect than you have.
Fence posts? At least they, being made of wood, were once alive. I
have decorative *rocks* in my front yard that are smarter than Andrew.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:36:34 -0500, Jesus <Je...@Christ.org> wrote:
>On 2012-11-10 06:27 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:25:35 -0500, Adam
>> <adam7days6000years...@creation.org> wrote:
>>> On 2012-11-10 06:16 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:> On Sat, 10 Nov 2012
>>> 18:04:59 -0500, Adam
>>>> <adam7days6000years...@creation.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 2012-11-10 05:52 PM, Jeanne Douglas wrote:> In article
>>>>> <0N-dnf5PW_c6XQPNnZ2dnUVZ_uOdn...@earthlink.com>,
>>>>>> "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Of course, that load of twaddle answers nothing.
>>>>> Good response, Andrew. From what the Lord said to us about them, I
>>>>> suspected as much when I would watch the first animals being born.
>>>> What a fucking moron.
>>> Christopher of course is the result of DNA splicing with people, animals
>>> and a tomato. That's why he acts the way that he does.
>> How is treating a fucking moron as a fucking moron for posting such
>> mind-boggling stupidity, evidence for that, imbecile?
>>> Adam & Eve
>Watch the language, Christopher. We're Christians here.
In an atheist newsgroup, you "Christians" are quite welcome to go fuck
yourselves with an entrenching tool (you cheap bastards may share one
if you like).
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence? BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
> >> >> Actually: (This was posted originally by jillery over on T.O.):
> >> >> For those interested in something different than an IDist doing his
> >> >> usual dodging and weaving, here are some links that I think are
> >> >> interesting:
> >> >> This explains that the DNA code found on Earth didn't need to appear
> >> >> all-at-once, but evolved stepwise from an initial start of a few of
> >> >> the most common and thermally stable amino acids into the code we
> >> >> observe today.
> >> >> The above contains links to a previous article:
> >> >> This explains that increased temperature increases reactivity of some
> >> >> pre-biotic chemistry far more than expected, increasing the likelihood
> >> >> of abiogenesis.
> >> >> This describes some of the abiotic chemical precursors found around
> >> >> alkaline hydrothermal vents, a possible location for abiogenesis.
> >> >> Happy reading.
> >> >> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
> >> >> BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
> >> >> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> >> >> skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
> >> >> skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com
> >> > Ten to one that Andrew dismisses any and all
> >> > of this as "fantasy".
> > :
> >> Yes, or shall we say.. pseudo metaphysical fantasy
> >> decked out in scientific garb to deceive the masses.
> > Wow! That was one hell of a lot of material there,
> > Andrew. I'm pretty much familiar with most of the
> > basics, and it still would have taken me quite some
> > time to digest it all.
> > So, what's your secret? How did you manage
> > not just to read through all that, but to find the
> > flaws in each and every writeup?
> > Really, I'm serious: do enlighten us with
> > your insights. Let's just take, say the first four
> > essays, and you can critique each for us
> Here are some points to keep in mind:
> 1. Evidence shows that the earth never had a reducing atmosphere.
> 2. Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein, apart from
> the mechanism to do so which is in cells that are *already* alive.
> 3. RNA is not synthesized ~except~ in cells that are *already* alive.
> And, the nucleotides (of which RNA is made) require for -their-
> synthesis the mechanism to do so that is in ~living~ cells.
> Now, in light of the above, please point out any one of Brenda's
> links above, that you think is not dependent on fantasy, contrary
> to these established scientific facts.
> Thank you.
> Andrew
Did I ask you for hand-waving generalities?
No, I did not. What I DID and AM demanding of you
for are specific criticisms of specific articles.
Pick an article. Get busy.
Oh, and just for your edification:
1) if you're still hung up on Miller's experiments,
get over it. No one is postulating a reducing
atmosphere these days -- and more importantly,
few are even thinking about life having arisen
on the surface.
2) who says that proteins were a component
of the first blobs that could be called "life"?
No researcher in this fieldl that I know of.
3) nucleotides have been found on asteroids.
Are you claiming that there is life in open space?
Now pick one and start getting specific.
Seth
Oh and by the way?
"Nucleotide phosphorylation and RNA oligomerization
take place in water in non-enzymatic abiotic conditions."
Discussion subject changed to "Disapproving Creation: Creationist Coward Andrew-a-Blank Demands That We Understand How Huge a Hypocrite he Is!" by Budikka666
On Nov 10, 6:43 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> You are obviously waaaay outside of your field.
This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials, yet who demands
that we accept his lies, and then turns around and RUNS every time
*we* demand he supports them? lol!
Thanks for showing everyone on Usenet what a coward, a liar, and a
vacuous hypocrite for Christ you are.
You're way better than I am at discrediting your brain-dead beliefs.
Andrew-a-Blank's shameful record of denying Christ follows.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e... Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4... Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a8427... Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe... Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/986crjk http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb677165... Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453... Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.
>>>>>>>> "Protein-coding genes make up just 1.5 percent of our
>>>>>>>> genome. The rest includes a lot of what is thought to be
>>>>>>>> useless junk with no discernible function."
>>>>>>> No, the so called "Junk DNA" has *now been decoded*.
>>>>>>> http://www.p2l.it/1fs
>>>>>>> "They have determined that junk DNA is actually used to regulate gene
>>>>>>> expression. Or, junk DNA is really on-off switches for protein encoding
>>>>>>> DNA. ENCODE project results were published by Nature, Scientific
>>>>>>> American, New York Times and others." http://www.p2l.it/1fs
>>>>>>> So the truth is out, that our Creator did not make "junk" when He created
>>>>>>> the DNA for all living things..after all.
>>>>>> Your evidence for this is, what, exactly?
>>>>> Here --> http://www.p2l.it/1fs
>>>>>> Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
>>>>> If you want the truth, then renounce the falsehood about
>>>>> the supposedly junk DNA. The truth is, that our Creator
>>>>> did not make "junk" when He created the DNA required
>>>>> for life in all things, plant or animal.
>>>> Do you ever read what you post?? Read the.. article and
>>>> you will see that there is still questionable DNA.
>>> Yes, there are still some things you don't understand.
>>> But there is enough to know that DNA is evidence of
>>> a creation by a Creator. That is the important thing to
>>> understand, Ralph.
>> If that is what you brought away from the actual article, I think I see
>> your problem.
>> There are fence posts with more intellect than you have.
> Fence posts? At least they, being made of wood, were once alive. I
> have decorative *rocks* in my front yard that are smarter than Andrew.
Indeed. They know better than to construct arguments conclusion-first.
Discussion subject changed to "Disapproving Creation: Creationist Coward Andrew-a-Blank Demands That We Understand How Huge a Hypocrite he Is!" by Budikka666
> This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials,
> yet who demands that we accept his lies..
No, simply accept the truth. What I posted (below) was truth...
DNA has a system of symbols that are used by an encoding and
decoding mechanism that transmits instructions for assembling
a complete organism. These instructions are independent of the
communication medium itself, therefore the DNA molecule is
solid positive evidence of a purposeful creation and therefore
of a Creator.
I hope this helps to answers your previous question.
> > This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials,
> > yet who demands that we accept his lies..
> No, simply accept the truth. What I posted (below) was truth...
> DNA has a system of symbols that are used by an encoding and
> decoding mechanism that transmits instructions for assembling
> a complete organism. These instructions are independent of the
> communication medium itself, therefore the DNA molecule is
> solid positive evidence of a purposeful creation and therefore
> of a Creator.
Poor Andrew.
How can information be independent of the medium that carries it?
>> This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials, yet who demands
>> that we accept his lies..
> No, simply accept the truth. What I posted (below) was truth...
> DNA has a system of symbols that are used by an encoding and decoding
> mechanism that transmits instructions for assembling a complete organism.
> These instructions are independent of the communication medium itself,
> therefore the DNA molecule is solid positive evidence of a purposeful
> creation and therefore of a Creator.
Repeating your lies doesn't make them any truer, Andrew.
> "Budikka666" wrote in message news:859ed637-095e-499b-b5b4-203c2bd79d5e@4g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> You are obviously waaaay outside of your field.
>> This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials,
>> yet who demands that we accept his lies..
> No, simply accept the truth. What I posted (below) was truth...
> DNA has a system of symbols that are used by an encoding and
> decoding mechanism that transmits instructions for assembling
> a complete organism. These instructions are independent of the
> communication medium itself, therefore the DNA molecule is
> solid positive evidence of a purposeful creation and therefore
> of a Creator.
> I hope this helps to answers your previous question.
> Thank you.
> Andrew
> Jesus loves you sooooo much!
Considering Jesus has been dead for sooooo long, that would be quite a feat.
"Smiler" wrote in message news:pan.2012.11.12.00.17.34.422000@JoeKing.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> You are obviously waaaay outside of your field.
>>> This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials, yet who demands
>>> that we accept his lies..
>> No, simply accept the truth. What I posted (below) was truth...
>> DNA has a system of symbols that are used by an encoding and decoding
>> mechanism that transmits instructions for assembling a complete organism.
>> These instructions are independent of the communication medium itself,
>> therefore the DNA molecule is solid positive evidence of a purposeful
>> creation and therefore of a Creator.
> Repeating your lies doesn't make them any truer, Andrew.
If what I wrote were not true, you would not be here to
talk about it.
"Ralph" wrote in message news:0pmdndT3naKX1j3NnZ2dnUVZ5sydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> You are obviously waaaay outside of your field.
>>> This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials,
>>> yet who demands that we accept his lies..
>> No, simply accept the truth. What I posted (below) was truth...
>> DNA has a system of symbols that are used by an encoding and
>> decoding mechanism that transmits instructions for assembling
>> a complete organism. These instructions are independent of the
>> communication medium itself, therefore the DNA molecule is
>> solid positive evidence of a purposeful creation and therefore
>> of a Creator.
>> I hope this helps to answers your previous question.
>> Andrew
>> Jesus loves you sooooo much!
> Considering Jesus has been dead for sooooo long, that
> would be quite a feat.
"I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive
for evermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of death."
~ Jesus
Revelation 1:18
> "Smiler" wrote in messagenews:pan.2012.11.12.00.17.34.422000@JoeKing.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>> "Andrew" wrote:
> >>>> You are obviously waaaay outside of your field.
> >>> This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials, yet who demands
> >>> that we accept his lies..
> >> No, simply accept the truth. What I posted (below) was truth...
> >> DNA has a system of symbols that are used by an encoding and decoding
> >> mechanism that transmits instructions for assembling a complete organism.
> >> These instructions are independent of the communication medium itself,
> >> therefore the DNA molecule is solid positive evidence of a purposeful
> >> creation and therefore of a Creator.
> > Repeating your lies doesn't make them any truer, Andrew.
> If what I wrote were not true, you would not be here to
> talk about it.
> "Ralph" wrote in message news:0pmdndT3naKX1j3NnZ2dnUVZ5sydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> You are obviously waaaay outside of your field.
>>>> This from the worthless scum who has ZERO credentials,
>>>> yet who demands that we accept his lies..
>>> No, simply accept the truth. What I posted (below) was truth...
>>> DNA has a system of symbols that are used by an encoding and
>>> decoding mechanism that transmits instructions for assembling
>>> a complete organism. These instructions are independent of the
>>> communication medium itself, therefore the DNA molecule is
>>> solid positive evidence of a purposeful creation and therefore
>>> of a Creator.
>>> I hope this helps to answers your previous question.
>>> Andrew
>>> Jesus loves you sooooo much!
>> Considering Jesus has been dead for sooooo long, that
>> would be quite a feat.
> "I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive
> for evermore, Amen, and have the keys of hell and of death."
> ~ Jesus
> Revelation 1:18
Since Jesus was dead, how did he write that garbage? Oh, that's right.... he never wrote anything.
