D
down_under
Guest
wow this is interesting. I am a new student here in australia. I have not been to school in 15 years, and as I am going to be a pharmicist I am studying biology. so I thought I would take a look at the old evolution argument to see where we were get orientated to my new enviornment. and I find wow they proved einstins theory of general relitivity. so they scientifically proved that God exists. that was cool. then I find out that they understand that DNA is a code. what I mean is that in mid lecture my cell bio. teacher told me point blank that DNA is a language. It was explained to me in detail in school that you cannot make DNA or RNA without proteins and from DNA comes RNA comes Proteins. this is the chicken and the egg argument. last lecture just yesterday we are taught about evolution. darwinian evolution of course. She did not address a single major issue with evolution. she actually tought about fossiles as if that has any baring on the matter anymore. I knew about the cambrian explosion 15 years ago, she did not address that either. she did not even mention the 80’s chichago conference. never mind the irriducibly complex nature of the cell.
these highly intellegent people are still taking the theory of life from a guy who could not see 99% of all informaiton on cellular inheritance. and they are taking it like gospel. everyone in that lecture hall could eaisly see that she was avoiding the many problems with the theory as it was originally written. she certainly did not address any of the more recent problems such as molecular isolation:shrug:
Then I found out about herbert yokey who is not religious could be an anti religious person not entirely certain. He actually goes on record arguing that the words transcription and translation are not ambiguious, they are not metephors but are actually at home in the language of DNA. he compares DNA to the 7 teir signal transferance of a computer binary system directly and immediately. he says they are the same thing. does he miss the point that if they are the same thing then the signal of DNA has to have a point of origion. it had to come form somewhere. and now venter says that DNA is software and uses this software to make the first synthetic cell. she actually doubted his experiment. “this happens all the time he is just talking up his new thing-it might all be made up” I actually told her that this is not some fossil out of china, this is craig venter. to which she laughed kindly admitting the point that this is probably not garbage.
If anyone in this day and age thinks they can still logically defend darwinism against any of these claims I would sure like to hear you take your best shot, but I already watched atkins get asked these quesitons. he literally said he would not consider the point because he had a prior comment to materialism. if that is the best there is. why the hell are they still teaching this at the university level to intellegent people who can see right through it.
these highly intellegent people are still taking the theory of life from a guy who could not see 99% of all informaiton on cellular inheritance. and they are taking it like gospel. everyone in that lecture hall could eaisly see that she was avoiding the many problems with the theory as it was originally written. she certainly did not address any of the more recent problems such as molecular isolation:shrug:
Then I found out about herbert yokey who is not religious could be an anti religious person not entirely certain. He actually goes on record arguing that the words transcription and translation are not ambiguious, they are not metephors but are actually at home in the language of DNA. he compares DNA to the 7 teir signal transferance of a computer binary system directly and immediately. he says they are the same thing. does he miss the point that if they are the same thing then the signal of DNA has to have a point of origion. it had to come form somewhere. and now venter says that DNA is software and uses this software to make the first synthetic cell. she actually doubted his experiment. “this happens all the time he is just talking up his new thing-it might all be made up” I actually told her that this is not some fossil out of china, this is craig venter. to which she laughed kindly admitting the point that this is probably not garbage.
If anyone in this day and age thinks they can still logically defend darwinism against any of these claims I would sure like to hear you take your best shot, but I already watched atkins get asked these quesitons. he literally said he would not consider the point because he had a prior comment to materialism. if that is the best there is. why the hell are they still teaching this at the university level to intellegent people who can see right through it.
