Quote:
Originally Posted by valarmorghulis
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You're an idiot. That's like saying hieroglyphs aren't a language because it wasn't all nicely labeled for the people who discovered it in the language that they spoke. No shit it isn't labeled you complete retard. It first has to be deciphered and then translated.
|
thank you for proving my point. dna had to be labelled and deciphered by humans with a human system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valarmorghulis
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
As for countering your claim of the a priori model not allowing for the existence of God, there's really no need to. If the model doesn't allow for God then the model is simply incorrect. Some arbitrary man made model has no relevance or bearing on reality.
|
everything you're using is man made so why are you using it? you've factored out the possibility that god can't exist or has not ever existed (cogito ergo sum on your end so read up some heidegger) and when that possibility is put on the table you've ignored it. you're using logical systems that don't support your own claims or beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by valarmorghulis
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Also LOL at that retarded article you linked that destroyed it's own argument and provides evidence for the existence of God in the very 2nd sentence.
It claims DNA was invented. Therefor it requires an inventor. Game. Set. Match. Thanks for playing.
|
so you pick out the one thing in the summary of the study (the inroduction) that seems to agree with your weltanschauung while ignoring the following sentences thus taking it out of context. your troll is tired, let it sleep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenzig
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Actually what you said was that computer code is not comparable to organic chemistry. Well there must be much more of a connection than you assume if computer code of.any kind can be stored in organic material. And if said code, even if it is now viewed as 'simplistic' can be coded into DNA by highly skilled scientists, then how did the much more complex information code that is DNA come to be?
|
computer code is computer code. if your encoding information on dna then you're using organic methods and not strictly computer code. comparing coding eq to the creation of dna is absurd.