Today's Scripture Reading

[fishbuff]

How scientific can it be when most of the 'evidences' are limited to skulls. Other comparative skeletal material such as the progression of pelvises, knees, hands and feet are equally interesting but they are not part of the significant 'evidences' in the evolution theory. Furthermore, how on earth Charles Darwin knew the age of the fossils to be thousands or millions of years' when carbon-14 dated technology was not discovered until 1940, more than 50 years after the theory of evolution - the Origin of Specie - was published. At best, that was Darwin's guest work. And today, many scientists are questioning the accuracy of using carbon-14 for dating fossils.

Furthermore, as I have mentioned this before here, DNA then was not discovered. It was discovered almost 8 years after the book - the Origin of Specie - was published. In other words, the science of DNA was not part of the assumptions in this theory. But more importantly, we know that DNA is not mere protein or some kind of chemical. It is a biological software language or programming that controlls virtually every component of a living organism from the smallest cell to the largest animal. The question of who wrote this biological software language is conveniently left out. We know that all languages must come from a mind. You may have seen a formula engraved onto a tree like 2+2 = 8, and though this equation doesn't make sense, it still has to come from someone. Hence, how can complex biological software language in the DNA can be created through natural selection process and created out of pure chance. Remember, DNA is not a material thing or a physical object. It is a language that only the best mind could until it.

And I agree. Evolution is not a fairy tale. Rather it is a tale that confuses mankind's identity that we are created in the image of God.

you reference to Darwin's work and relation to his dependence on fossils and DNA are laughable and grossly inaccurate. rotflmao.

so you can use logic to argue against other science theories but you CANNOT use them to analyze your bible? why when it come to superstition stuff, your logic stop functioning? i think you really put 0 + 0 = 1000000000 in your bible. out of nothing, comes everything. no facts needed, just superstitious belief. that is called a DOGMA.

riiiiiight.

 

[fishbuff]

Sorry, but Charles Darwin did not know how deep composition was buried either. His was a theory. A theory, period. Are you aware that his Origin of Species also contained 3 potential objections (without addressing them) and evolutionists probably developed the evolution theory from there but distance that from Darwinism?

In fact, missing links was one of the 3, and years later species are still so far apart and there is not much left to dig.

By the way, talking about virus, look at the flu virus. It certainly looks more complicated than the cake you bake. Tell me if that combination can come from random chance, even if that is the only thing that exists.

View attachment 3583

if you go to virology class, one of the main subject that they studied is the evolution of viruses and bacterias. they dont study the god's creation of virus out from nothing! same goes to immunology.

as vmjok said, since WHEN darwin use fossils to derive his evolution theory? his travel on the ship called beagle to galapogos islands and made observations on different animals, and require a bird experts to identify the captured birds to be finches, but they have different beaks which is adapted to different environment. ... just go and read the origin of species.

come on, what is a scientific theory? "oh, it is just a theory!" says the creationists. Science theory is one of the highest discipline of science that require massive amount of facts, observation, derive hypothesis and work out the conclusion. then that is subject to a panel of experts and you have to proof how, why, where, when your theory is based on and derive. if other scientists cannot replicate what you have derived, that your theory is fallible. so there are heaps of checks and balance in place, unlike religions where no one question the pastors, reverends, iman or priests.

that doesn't apply to religions, everything plucked from the air and assumed it is god's word. how can you be so prejudiced against science but throw unwavering support for blind superstitions?

may i quote the 10 commandments of science which i got it from the net.

10 commandments of science

I. Thou shalt base the conclusion on the evidence.
II. Thou shalt measure objectively, not guess selectively.
III. Thou shalt back up thy statements with evidence.
IV. Thou shalt use large sample numbers.
V. Thy tests shalt be blind.
VI. Thy tests shalt have controls.
VII. Thou shalt cite thy sources of information.
VIII. Thy sources of information must be reliable, verifiable and backed by evidence.
IX. Opinion is not fact.
X. Thou shalt not bear false witness (don´t cheat)

 

[fishbuff]

here's a cartoon that basically sums up the difference between real science and creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/Images/CA230_1Trever.gif

 

[Psalm23]

give u a bloody hint, he did not go around looking for dinosaur bone

stop embarrassing yourself, i have no idea why the fuck you bring this up. talking to religious idiot like you is something really confusing.

You are not an attentive reader....we didn't see anyone here indicated that Darwin went round looking for dinosaur bone. You just dreamt it up.

Darwin went to search for subspecies and species in his marine voyages and concluded from those speciemens - some live and some dead one - that different kind of animals were evolved over time. One couldn't find dead animals unless you dug up their remains or fossils and the term 'fossils' do not find to only animals. Dead plants can also be called fossils.

In any case, Darwin made the comparisons purely on the physical aspects, and in fact he couldn't account the behavioural aspects of the different animals. He acknowledge this himself in his subsquent writing. He couldn't provide an explanation to the changes in the behaviourable of animals and he carried the question to his grave.

 

[Psalm23]

Dear Scientist (?) Vamjok,

Thanks for answering the test. The following are your results:

(a) Carbon-14 was invented 50 years after the theory of evolution - the Origin of Species - was published: false

Result: Wrong! Carbon 14 was discovered in 1940. This is more than 50 years after the theory of evolution was published.

(b) In my message above, there is no mentioned that Carbon-14 is the only method of dating fossile: TRUE

Results: Correct!

(c) Today, the accurarcy of using Carbon-14 is being questioned by scientific community: TRUE

(Cautions: You better be careful when answering this question because I can provide you scientific evidence on this.)<--- i know this better than you, but i can confidently tell you the margin of error does not point to a 6000 year old earth which dumb nuts like you believe.

Result: Correct! But your comment is unnecessary. Since you made the comments of your answers let me add my comments to your comments. If you are using a faulty weighing machine to weigh a 2-ton object and the faulty machine read as 1-ton, no matter how many times you weigh the object using the same faulty machine, you will get wrong result of one ton. It's a joke to compare the two results and say, high there is no error because both show up 1-ton. Likewise, the method is not accurate and now the scientific community is using other methods - and there are now dozens of them and even though these dozens of methods have their own defects. No one can really say with 100% confident of the age of a fossil, especially it was dead 'thosands' or 'millions' years ago. The composition of the fossils changed overtime and furthermore, no one can tell the environment thousands or millions years ago. Changes in atmospheric environemnt has the greatest impact on fossils. Just plucked out a leave from any garden and do a carbon14 test, you will discover the leave can be few million years old.

(d) There are millions scientists in the world, and you are just one of the million: FALSE

Results: Wrong! Just in the U.S. alone, every year there are at least 30,000 to 40,000 people graduated with PHD in science, medicine and other technical subjects. it doesn't take a person to calculate that to generate 1 million scientists wouldn't take too long. Remember this is only in the U.S., and plus existing the number of scientists around the world and those graduated with PHD each year (Permanent Head Damaged degree?) in other countries, there are tens of millions of scientists in the world. So, if you are a scientist (really???), even then you are just one of the tens of millions.

i dun think there are so many scientist in the world now

(e) DNA is not a material object but a biological language: FALSE

fucking take basic biology before you talk

Result: Wrong! You may call any chemical, protein DNA even though it may have some similar physical properites like those found in the body. But those 'protein or chemical DNAs' that are incapable of being replicated or reproduced themselves cannot be called DNA in the true sense of the wordl That's the reason why forensic scientists can just take a tiny drop of blood and replicate the DNA in the laboratory to help fight crimes. Yes, some non-living chemicals have DNA but they are not the same as the one science talk about. Only living cells got DNA which controlls all the functions of the cell. DNA is a biological software that controlls all the functions of a living cell.

(f) Only living organism has DNA: FALSE

biology fail, who told you that

Result: Wrong! See my assessment of your answer in (e) above.

(g) The theory of evolution written by Charles Darwin had never factored into any consideration of DNA: TRUE

there is no need to

Result: Correct. But also see my assessment of your answer in (h) below.

(h) Charles Darwin did know what DNA was all about: true

he died early

Result: Correct! But your comment is unnecessary, and since you made the comment, let me add my comments to your comment. Charles Darwin died in 1882, and DNA was discovered in 1861 by a Swiss doctor. So, he didn't died 'early'. At the time of his death. DNA already was known but of course the science of DNA was not as advanced as it is today. Had been so advanced like today, the theory of evolution would have never been written! It was so sad that 'Charles Darwin died early' - biblically-speaking.

Your final result: You are a scientist! No comment!
Remember - there are tens of millions scientists out there! Do you know who you are talking to?

The final conclusion of Darwin's work and research was simply comparing apples to oranges and then said to the world: You see these oranges were once upon a time apples! Nothing more, nothing less. The world is wasting a lot of valuable resources digging here, digging there, assembling dead bones just to tell themselves: You see once upon a time these apples were oranges. It confirms what Charles Darwin said 150 years ago!

 

[fishbuff]

Your final result: You are a scientist! No comment!
Remember - there are tens of millions scientists out there! Do you know who you are talking to?

The final conclusion of Darwin's work and research was simply comparing apples to oranges and then said to the world: You see these oranges were once upon a time apples! Nothing more, nothing less. The world is wasting a lot of valuable resources digging here, digging there, assembling dead bones just to tell themselves: You see once upon a time these apples were oranges. It confirms what Charles Darwin said 150 years ago!

why would you even argue about science when clearly, it is NOT the platform that you use to believe.
You dont use fact and logic to select religion, Only with ignorance and superstitions.

as mentioned before, in the early 16th century when science was budding, religion tried to strangle it down, burning Bruno and torture other scientists.
now in the modern society, science has reached adulthood, and it is the current paradigm that we based all our reasoning on, and now religions had nowhere to hide but to twist the facts and distory the truth so as to hide its ugly ignorant head.

do you know that only in 1960s did the inquisition stop? ok, they didnt burn any heretics but the same ideology persist till this centuries. People can say bad things about Napoleon but he did overthrew the Vatican church's inquisition which were prevalent across europe.

fyi, radioactive carbon dating is just one of the few radioactive dating system that exist in the modern world and it has limitation of about 5000+ years. there are others like potassium argon dating which can stretch for more than billions of years and it has been correctly dated that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

oh i forgot, in your religion, earth was less than 5000 years old and it was flat circle in a heliocentric universe.

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

 

[vamjok]

(a) Result: Wrong! Carbon 14 was discovered in 1940. This is more than 50 years after the theory of evolution was published.

i fuck you

radiocarbon dating method pioneered by Willard Libby and colleagues (1949)
Carbon 14 yes in 1940. you know the difference?

On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859

its more than 100 years. i say false why wrong? FUCK U

 

[vamjok]

Result: Correct! But your comment is unnecessary. Since you made the comments of your answers let me add my comments to your comments. If you are using a faulty weighing machine to weigh a 2-ton object and the faulty machine read as 1-ton, no matter how many times you weigh the object using the same faulty machine, you will get wrong result of one ton. It's a joke to compare the two results and say, high there is no error because both show up 1-ton. Likewise, the method is not accurate and now the scientific community is using other methods - and there are now dozens of them and even though these dozens of methods have their own defects. No one can really say with 100% confident of the age of a fossil, especially it was dead 'thosands' or 'millions' years ago. The composition of the fossils changed overtime and furthermore, no one can tell the environment thousands or millions years ago. Changes in atmospheric environemnt has the greatest impact on fossils. Just plucked out a leave from any garden and do a carbon14 test, you will discover the leave can be few million years old.

U FUCKING KNOW WHAT IS INSTRUMENTATION CALIBRATION A NOT
i see this comment of yours fucking make me laugh. TALK WHAT COCK
u this kind of standard dare to question me? go fucking get a basic sci degree first then u talk to me

THIS SHOWS THAT U HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA BEHIND THIS METHOD AND PRINCIPLE. knn u dare to question me if u dunno how it works u this chee bye kia

i expect your level to be a lot higher since you on the surface ask some technical question. BUT WHEN I SEE THIS IS UR REPLY, is really KNNBCCB

 

[vamjok]

(d) There are millions scientists in the world, and you are just one of the million: FALSE

Results: Wrong! Just in the U.S. alone, every year there are at least 30,000 to 40,000 people graduated with PHD in science, medicine and other technical subjects. it doesn't take a person to calculate that to generate 1 million scientists wouldn't take too long. Remember this is only in the U.S., and plus existing the number of scientists around the world and those graduated with PHD each year (Permanent Head Damaged degree?) in other countries, there are tens of millions of scientists in the world. So, if you are a scientist (really???), even then you are just one of the tens of millions.

i dun think there are so many scientist in the world no>>>>


u are the one that said it, WHERE IS THE SOURCE AND STATISTIC DUN JUST TALK. but this one i will let it go for it is of no real interest to me

 

[vamjok]

esult: Wrong! You may call any chemical, protein DNA even though it may have some similar physical properites like those found in the body. But those 'protein or chemical DNAs' that are incapable of being replicated or reproduced themselves cannot be called DNA in the true sense of the wordl That's the reason why forensic scientists can just take a tiny drop of blood and replicate the DNA in the laboratory to help fight crimes. Yes, some non-living chemicals have DNA but they are not the same as the one science talk about. Only living cells got DNA which controlls all the functions of the cell. DNA is a biological software that controlls all the functions of a living cell.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

GO FUCKING TAKE A BASIC SCI DEGREE FIRST. your understanding of biochemistry is a joke, its funny that you try to test me when your level is at most secondary school kid.i have no idea what are you talking about beating around the bush.

DNA be it from living or non living organism can be replicated by itself. THAT IS FIRST, NO ARGUEMENT.

i cannot see any logic and flow in your argument at all. this shows u have really no fucking idea what you are talking about. what the link between transcription/translation property of DNA being is it a material substance a not.

if its not PCR amplification technique would not work, reason it is using simple chemicals of basic building blocks to replicate the DNA.

dunno, dun act smart.

 

[vamjok]

Only living organism has DNA: FALSE

biology fail, who told you that

Result: Wrong! See my assessment of your answer in (e) above.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

i confirm u fail biology fullstop and u have no fuckign idea what you are talking about. Virus is not a living thing and it has DNA. this very much show your level.

 

[vamjok]

harles Darwin died in 1882, and DNA was discovered in 1861 by a Swiss doctor. So, he didn't died 'early'. At the time of his death. DNA already was known but of course the science of DNA was not as advanced as it is today. Had been so advanced like today, the theory of evolution would have never been written! It was so sad that 'Charles Darwin died early' - biblically-speaking.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

yah isolated a few protein and have no idea what the fuck the function is u call that known. sorry your level and mine different, i will mark your ans as bullshit and wrong.3

its only via x-ray crystal at early 1900 and late nmr development that we are able to have a glimpse of its function. ur arguement is a joke

 

[vamjok]

u fucking set these question and u have no idea what the fuck u asking u chee bye kia.

 

[vamjok]

Darwin went to search for subspecies and species in his marine voyages and concluded from those speciemens - some live and some dead one - that different kind of animals were evolved over time. One couldn't find dead animals unless you dug up their remains or fossils and the term 'fossils' do not find to only animals. Dead plants can also be called fossils.

that was not his approach, don't play with words and snake around. Fossil refers to those organic material at least mineralized, at least 10 000 years.

HE DID NOT DO THAT CHEE BYE KIA

no wonder u bring in carbon dating which is fucking puzzling to me as these 2 are completely issue of different era. U HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT HIS WORK.

This further confirm u have no fuckign idea how he come up with his theory and u attack him. meaning u have no fucking idea what the fuck u are talking. typical xtain, brainless and never read much. i bet you struggle in science class and fail badly

 

[The Philistine]

WAH NOW SNAKE AWAY CHEE BYE KIA

SO.... what has this got to do with carbon 14 dating?

This is exactly what fundies are all about. When they cannot answer a question, they will find plenty of wriggle room. You know they have admitted defeat when they are left with no more cock excuses and are reduced to whimpering crap like "when you have faith, you know the truth".

 

[vamjok]

PS edit away the impt part as i felt i have not fuck him enough,

so chee bye kia, what has his theory got to do with carbon 14 dating? why u linked those 2?

 

[Psalm23]

(a) Result: Wrong! Carbon 14 was discovered in 1940. This is more than 50 years after the theory of evolution was published.

i fuck you

radiocarbon dating method pioneered by Willard Libby and colleagues (1949)
Carbon 14 yes in 1940. you know the difference?

On the Origin of Species, published on 24 November 1859

its more than 100 years. i say false why wrong? FUCK U

Dear Scientist (???) Vamjok,

Your answer is only correct if the question is: Carbon 14 was discovered in 1940. This is less than 50 years after the theory of evolution was published.

But if you read the question probably, the question is: Result: ..... more than 50 years ......

You must read the question before you answer the question.

Anyway, after serious considering your appeal, let me accept your answer. But you won't be so lucky the next time.

 

[Psalm23]

Only living organism has DNA: FALSE

biology fail, who told you that

Result: Wrong! See my assessment of your answer in (e) above.

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

i confirm u fail biology fullstop and u have no fuckign idea what you are talking about. Virus is not a living thing and it has DNA. this very much show your level.

Dear Scientist (???) Vamjok and all the readers here,

I think the following testimony by a Senior Scientist (this one is a real one) can really put an end to the discussions on Darwin's theory of evolution. It looks lengthy but this is one of the best articles one can read about the topic of: Evolution Theory in Crisis. So, dear readers, please read in its entirely. God bless.

Testing Truth with an Open Mind
Dr. Roy Spencer

[Dr. Roy Spencer is a senior scientist at the Marshall Space Flight Centre, USA, and is a leading scientist with NASA. At one point in his career he was asked to advise the White House on global temperature trends.]​

To be honest, what little I knew about Christianity bothered me! In particular, Christians in my area who went from house to house inviting people to events at their churches irritated me! These people clearly believed they were part of the one, true religion, if indeed there was one. I asked myself, how could they be so sure? If Christianity were true, why weren't most people Christians? How could anyone in good conscience devote his or her life to any one religion without at least investigating all the other world religions too?

I also had a fundamental problem with the Bible. Was not its first book, Genesis, merely a mythical account of how the universe and life came into being? Anyway, it seemed to me that Christians picked and chose what they wanted to believe, selecting some things in the Bible, while rejecting others, often quite arbitrarily and subjectively – how, then, could I regard their 'holy book' as the inspired Word of God? Fundamentalists were all a bunch of biased faith-heads, while scientists were objective, honest, unbiased and open-minded. Well, sort of! The time came when I began to realise, to my initial surprise, that there was a group of scientists who believed that the universe and all life within it had been created by some greater intelligent Being, not by mere chance. They were seemingly able to do so using scientific arguments, not just religious dogma. I began to study their case and after some months of analysis I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world.

The possibility then presented itself that, despite all I had previously thought, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, might actually be true! That realization led me to open a Bible for the first time, and to read it for myself, from the beginning. I also became open to reading the Bible because I discovered that a very intelligent friend of mine believed the Bible was the word of God. My family and I accepted this friend's invitation to accompany him to church one Sunday. I was impressed by the genuine concern and friendliness shown by many of the people. Clearly Christianity was not a faith confined to simple, or even socially maladjusted, people, as I had previously thought.

As I investigated religions other than Christianity, I became aware that many of them assume evolution to be true. The Bible was the only 'holy book' in which I could find a record of God's creating the material universe from nothing! Next, the work of many historians revealed to me that the Bible is by far the most accurate and best-substantiated ancient book known to man. It truthfully portrays actual historical events and has been faithfully copied by scribes over the centuries so that what we have today in the Bible is, to a very high degree (within a percentage point or two), known beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the same as was originally written down by the authors. Furthermore, nothing in that two percent affects any of the major Bible teachings or events.

When I turned to the gospels I learned that the contemporary enemies of Jesus, who wanted to disprove His divinity, could not deny His many miracles, there being too many eye witnesses. Not being able to dispute the fact of His amazing deeds, they questioned the source: they asserted, feebly, that an evil superhuman power had performed the miracles, not the Spirit of God!

I was struck by the unity of the Bible's message – the way it agreed with itself even though it was written by 40 different authors over a period of 1,600 years. I realised that the gospel records were free of comment from the writers. They merely recorded what they saw without exaggerating the events, without covering up the faults and failings of the followers of Jesus and without trying to present the story in exactly the same way. There were enough differences between the four gospels to prove they had not collaborated, but not enough differences to stray into the area of outright contradictions and errors.

So, at last, I had to face the reality, based on all the evidence, that the basic tenets of Christianity were true, and that the gospel of Christ really changes people's lives. True, my decision to become a Christian involved faith, but not the kind of faith caricatured by the likes of atheist Richard Dawkins, a faith that 'just believes' in the teeth of real evidence to the contrary. My faith in Christ was evidence-based. I had very well founded reasons for believing in Him. In fact, the eyewitness writer of the fourth gospel, John, explains why he recorded what he saw – "That you might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God " (John 20:31). So, having examined the Biblical record of creation and the person and work of Christ on the cross for my sins, of which I knew I was guilty, I put my trust in Him for salvation and, to explain to others what had happened to me, I was baptised.

To examine the relationship between science and the Bible, a good place to start is with the origin of the universe. Science presents us with the laws of thermodynamics, the first of which states that the total amount of matter and energy in existence is constant. If this were the only natural law to be satisfied, it would be possible to believe that the universe has existed forever. Indeed, that was the prevailing view back in Darwin's day. However, the second law of thermodynamics states the overall amount of useable energy is constantly decreasing – it is being degraded into a less useful form. In other words, the universe is dying. If the universe were eternal it would by now have experienced what astronomers call a 'heat death' – a state of total equilibrium in which entropy would be infinite. This, among other factors, has led a majority of astronomers to agree that the universe had a beginning. Several thousand years of scientific endeavour has brought the majority of scientists in line with the first verse of the Bible which states, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Well, the first three words of the verse anyway! If there is no God, who or what caused the universe to begin? There really are only two basic options – it created itself out of nothing or it was created by something greater than itself! If everything that begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, the universe must have had a cause.

A second issue is the origin of life. There is a vast gulf between the most complex non-living compound such as a crystal and the simplest form of life such as a bacterium. The gap is much larger than the gap between a bacterium and a human being. Science, despite expending enormous amounts of time, is actually further away from an explanation as to how non-living chemicals can accidentally and spontaneously come alive than it has ever been. All the evidence on hand, both in nature and in the laboratory, points to the fact that life only ever comes from life. The Bible credits the origin of life to the power and design of a 'living' creator God.

A third huge issue is the complexity of life. In recent years scientific advances have uncovered the complexity of the cell, both biologically (DNA, RNA, proteins, amino acids, etc.) and atomically (electrons, protons and neutrons etc.). It turns out that the nucleus of every human cell is a digitally coded database containing more information than Wikipedia, and is vastly more complicated than New York City. An increasing number of scientists consider it to be impossible that such a structure could have evolved through random processes, as evolutionists assume. The last 50 years or so have seen real evidence come to light that random mutation and natural selection are incapable of building complexity. Observation of malaria, E. coli and HIV, all of which exist in vast numbers and have short life cycles, have shown that while 'Darwinian' processes can cause minor changes, always involving a loss of complexity, they cannot build complexity – nor can they begin to explain where the proteins and genes came from in the first place. Again, the Bible has said all along that life was originally created and has ever since reproduced 'after its kind'.

Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer. In fact, every year that passes reveals all the more starkly that a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, life, complexity, consciousness and reason is not merely 'difficult' but hopelessly impossible. It took me a long time to finally approach the Bible with an open mind, but I am very glad there came a time when I did. My advice to you would be to seek out the truth for yourself. Unfortunately, much of what people believe is based less on evidence and more on unsubstantiated just-so stories. In relation to the basic claims of Christianity, do what I did! Read the Bible. Judge it for itself. Put it to the test. I am confident that you too will find the Bible not only to be in agreement with proven facts of science, but also to be the book which will lead you to a personal faith in God the creator of all things.

 

[Psalm23]

esult: Wrong! You may call any chemical, protein DNA even though it may have some similar physical properites like those found in the body. But those 'protein or chemical DNAs' that are incapable of being replicated or reproduced themselves cannot be called DNA in the true sense of the wordl That's the reason why forensic scientists can just take a tiny drop of blood and replicate the DNA in the laboratory to help fight crimes. Yes, some non-living chemicals have DNA but they are not the same as the one science talk about. Only living cells got DNA which controlls all the functions of the cell. DNA is a biological software that controlls all the functions of a living cell.

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

GO FUCKING TAKE A BASIC SCI DEGREE FIRST. your understanding of biochemistry is a joke, its funny that you try to test me when your level is at most secondary school kid.i have no idea what are you talking about beating around the bush.

DNA be it from living or non living organism can be replicated by itself. THAT IS FIRST, NO ARGUEMENT.

i cannot see any logic and flow in your argument at all. this shows u have really no fucking idea what you are talking about. what the link between transcription/translation property of DNA being is it a material substance a not.

if its not PCR amplification technique would not work, reason it is using simple chemicals of basic building blocks to replicate the DNA.

dunno, dun act smart.

Dear Scientist (???) Vamjok,

You miss the point totally....Can they replicate themselves - i.e. without any human intervention? Of course in the lab, you can replicate anything you want...but by itself? Did I say, DNA in inorganic materials cannot be replicated...I mention non-living DNA cannot replicate themselves. There is a whole of difference, dear Scientist (???) Vamjok. Just like all living cells, they can replicate by itself otherwise how you think your skin can grow thicker by the day (and but overtime it can get thinner) and this is because of the working of organic DNA without which no life can exist. Leave the inorganic substance alone they cannot replicate other when you go home tonight, instead of one pair of shoes that you may discover your shoe-cabinet have another pair replicated from the one already in the shoe-cabinet.

You need to read more and be more precise in your rebuttal.....because you have totally miss another point. The organic DNA is active and can do all the functions that is inherent in a particular cell. Can inorganic DNA perform this role? It is the ability to function like a computer software that makes the organic DNA so unique and because of this, this can never be created in the lab. Yes...in the lab, they can create so-called inorganic DNAs but they are dead objects. Furthermore, in all human, the DNA though can be replicated but they are absolutely unique. Each indiviidual has it's own DNA fingerprint that determines really who he or she is. Among the functions, this is one of the most important and now forensic scientists rely this property heavily to fight crimes. There is nothing more unique than the live DNA of human body....you cannot replicate and create this artificially in the lab. You can replicate by taking the sample from a cell.

The above article by a real scientist can confirm some of my points. Scientist (???) Vamjok, for your easy reference, I have extracted a para. that you put you to rest and make you more at ease and wake up to know that DNA, RNA are as close to computer software as anyone can get...hopefully:

A third huge issue is the complexity of life. In recent years scientific advances have uncovered the complexity of the cell, both biologically (DNA, RNA, proteins, amino acids, etc.) and atomically (electrons, protons and neutrons etc.). It turns out that the nucleus of every human cell is a digitally coded database containing more information than Wikipedia, and is vastly more complicated than New York City. An increasing number of scientists consider it to be impossible that such a structure could have evolved through random processes, as evolutionists assume. The last 50 years or so have seen real evidence come to light that random mutation and natural selection are incapable of building complexity. Observation of malaria, E. coli and HIV, all of which exist in vast numbers and have short life cycles, have shown that while 'Darwinian' processes can cause minor changes, always involving a loss of complexity, they cannot build complexity – nor can they begin to explain where the proteins and genes came from in the first place. Again, the Bible has said all along that life was originally created and has ever since reproduced 'after its kind'.

 

[vamjok]

U KNNCCB LOSE ALREADY CHANGE TOPIC?

U URSELF IS THE ONE THAT SAY

Only living organism has DNA <--- I SAY FALSE U SAY WRONG

Then now u cut and paste a bunch of bullshit which has totally no link to the original topic. pua chee bye kia, if you know nuts about biochemistry bloody shut the fuck up and stay away from it.