Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Monday, December 25, 2006

ID and Creation: The $64,000 question:

Why is it that the only people who conflate ID and Creation the same people who know the least about either?

posted by Joe G @ 9:17 AM  

3 Comments:

  • At 8:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LarryFarfarafararman:
    hey Joseph

    Hey Larry

    LarryFarfarafararman:
    we saw your comment.

    We? Is that you and the mouse in your pocket? :)

    LarryFarfarafararman:
    Care to explain what in the world that means?

    Do you care to answer the $64,000 question? tit-for-tat don't ya know...

    (and yes I had planned on an elaboration on my UD post)

    What Larry is referring to can be read in its entirety here:

    The Sound of The Neutral Theory Exploding:

    “Mutations leading to identical amino acid sequences can change protein folding and function”… 12/21/06

    “Biologists have realized that the genetic code harbours a layer of information that they have largely ignored."


    Larry,

    Have you ever written any computer code or designed an intricate functioning machine?

    Ya see in order for me to 'splain myself to you I need to know what you are familiar with pertaining to the world of intentional design.

     

  • At 7:51 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    LarryFarfarafararman:
    As to the $64,000 question, the authors of 'Of Pandas and People' conflated ID with Creationism >250 times.

    They couldn't have. Because although thoughts on design have been around for millenia, the actual cohesive term of intelligent design in the context it is now used, didn't exist at the time "Of Pandas and People" was first written.

    Dover in Review, pt. 3: Did Judge Jones accurately describe the content and early versions of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People?

    Early unpublished drafts- go pound sand Larry.


    LarryFarfarafararman:
    I'm just curious how the imperfect redundancy of the codon system somehow means design to you,

    That alone, does not.

    LarryFarfarafararman:
    and perfect design at that.

    The only thing I have ever said about a "perfect design" is that there never had to be one. And IF there was one at one time no one said it had to stay that way.

    Hey Larry- in all your experience have you any knowledge of E. Coli or any other bacteria "evolving" into anything other than bacteria?

    How about any single-celled organism? Any data that demonstrates that any population of single-celled organisms can "evolve" into something other than single-celled organisms?

    As for:

    Out of the 20 amino acids that can be found in living organisms only 2 have only one corresponding codon(triplet). This is a perfect way to use a limited number of amino acids in many different ways.

    Versatility. A sign of planning. Another layer of information- added to the layer of alternative gene splicing and perhaps even part of it.

    Sheer-dumb-luck explains this layering of information how?

     

  • At 11:48 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Now I understand Larry's problem- it is with my use of the word 'perfect'in the following sentence:

    This is a perfect way to use a limited number of amino acids in many different ways.

    That is why I asked Larry if he had any design experience. If he had he would have known that 'perfect'in the context I used it refers to "satisfying all requirements".

     

Post a Comment

<< Home