jump to last post 1-18 of 18 discussions (67 posts)

The DNA CODE Proves Intelligent Design

  1. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    DNA does no such thing! Nothing intelligent about intelligent design. smile

    1. DiamondRN profile image79
      DiamondRNposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Ernest,  could you be more specific about the holes that you see in  the DNA/RNA complex and repetition processes? 

      Have you observed any random molecular changes or anomalies that might have produced a viable alternative to DNA?

      What would you do to accidentally improve on God's design?

      1. ceciliabeltran profile image74
        ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        he will probably say, the genes of all religious people.

    2. sarmack profile image60
      sarmackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, DNA is built into the Tree of Life which is the Spiritual Tree that you assend, and descend, in your Spiritual walk of life.  The Tree of Life is from Jewish Mysticism and is hundreds of years old.  There is no greater Intelligence that that which is acquired through the Tree of Life...

      1. peterxdunn profile image61
        peterxdunnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You forgot the tree that bore the golden apples in the garden of the Hesperides. Eating these apples gave the Greek Gods immortality and infinite wisdom. This tree was also guarded by a serpent: the Hydra (the seven headed beast of Revelation.

  2. goldenpath profile image73
    goldenpathposted 7 years ago

    Hi! smile

    I hate seeing threads in limbo, so I thought I'd say "Hello!"

    When I told my kids "No", I let them know that they did not respectfully execute DNA.  That is - Did Not Ask!  OK, I admit that was a stupid joke.  I know, I know, don't quit my day job because I'll never make it as a stand-up comedian.  What do you think about a sit-down comedian?  Do I forsee I career change for me?  I better stick to what I've got.  Take care down under! smile

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I dunno GP, you might make it. Comedy is easier to sell to some than religion. smile

  3. profile image0
    SirDentposted 7 years ago

    lol

  4. profile image61
    paarsurreyposted 7 years ago

    "The DNA CODE Proves Intelligent Design"

    The Creator -God Allah YHWH; the Most Wise and Intelligent had designed this Universe; the Scientists are amazed. Aren't they?

    Thanks

    1. ceciliabeltran profile image74
      ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Allah Huagbar and Masel Tov to you as well As Christ be with you and Namaste!

      Allah is very pleased with your praise, I'm sure.
      Just take it easy as you are making me nervous.

  5. profile image65
    logic,commonsenseposted 7 years ago

    I think it was just a really good CAD program! smile

  6. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    First assumption there is god's design and second it needs improvement. Both assumptions have no proofs so it's fun to make sweeping statements and expect REAL answers for them eh ?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      What I find funny is them accusing science of saying "do not ask" when they have absolutely no evidence whatsoever for their ridiculous beliefs and cannot answer a single question other than to say - "just have faith," lolol

      Soooo funny. Not a one of them went to school either by the looks of their responses.

      Ahh religion. You can apparently live your entire life off the backs of other's labor and - this is OK according to their "morals."  Disgusting behavior. No wonder the USA is going into the abyss. lol

      1. profile image0
        brotheryochananposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Its obvious except to the unsaved carnal thinker that there could be any rational conclusion to this dna 'thing'. What i find funny, is of course it just happened like all the other just happened occurrences that happened to occur. Out of 300 billion plus entities that are UNinhabitable, it just so happens that by evolution or coincidence the earth did not follow that course of events. That the chances of being struck by lightning 50xs in a persons life are more apt to happen than out of everything that evolved in the universe 1, one, 1 planet is habitated and habitated in such a beautiful way that because it is habitated there are so many just happened events to make this planet so, and of course a complicated entity like dna which holds the code for human life and each uniquely different, well, that doesn't prove that god exists. I guess the unsaved will have to wait for jesus return because there happens to be no other way to save many of them.
        Soooo funny, With all that chance and coincidence and happenstance i can't believe people call belief in jesus and belief in god ridiculous.

    2. Pcunix profile image93
      Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Of course it needs improvement.  It doesn't always replicate well, which is what causes all sorts of genetic diseases and problems.

      1. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        There are faults in god's design ? Err, i'm sure christian holding onto their beliefs will defend it with something like this.

        DNA is affected by following parameters:

        - Sins (everyone makes sin that makes it hard to improve this area).
        - Free-will
        - Satan white noise
        - Prayers...(Prayers can do wonder ya know).

        Sorry, but improving DNA is god's will based on above mentioned parameters. You can't disprove this because verse no [786:786 Peter North] said this is in final hidden testament soon to be revealed by Yeshua Jr.

        1. earnestshub profile image87
          earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I can't wait to hear from the little fella! lol

  7. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    lol

    By any chance OP was about cosmicfingerprints.com ?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure. This was yet another religious spammer though. There is an awful lot of money to be made selling this nonsense. Disgusting behavior. No ethical standards, that is the problem.

  8. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago

    Scientist can no more prove there is no God, anymore then we can prove there is a God. Scientist base their theories on supposition.  Anyone who says that scientist have proven the origins of life, is delusional.

    If mankind originated from the sea, where did the sea come from?
    If it is due to the Big Bang..where did the radiation come from?

    How is it that everything comes in male and female?

    Why does everything have the strongest urges of love and self survival?

    According to the dictionary:
    atheism
    noun
    the theory or belief that God does not exist.

    I would think that most scientist are agnostics not atheist.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Aww - so we should LOL take your word that in spite of the 100% total lack of evidence - it is now a theory that 100% lack of proof means something does not exist. Santa is real now? And the easter bunny and the tooth fairy? ? Just a theory that they do not? Deary me......

      Sorry you are unable to understand what words mean.

      A-theism.
      Lack of belief in a god or gods.

      Gosh you guys are getting desperate. Still- quote some stuff from an old book or something. That should make you feel clever. wink

      I have a new word for you to learn as well. I am surprised it was left out of your biology science degree:

      A-sexual.

      Guess what it means? wink

    2. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      i agree with you scientist are agnostics..i mean most of it...open minded is right approach instead of rejecting anything...

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Nonsense. In every other aspect of life, we tend to reject things until proven other wise. This is a sensible option and - Evolution dictates this as a survival trait.

        We do not believe the ice will hold us or the nice pussy cat will not eat us until proven other wise. We are not open minded about whether or not we will die if we jump in the volcano. wink

        Skeptical until proven otherwise is how we survive. Prolly best to throw that out if you want to propagate a religious belief though huh?

        1. lone77star profile image87
          lone77starposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Mark Knowles said, "...we tend to reject things until proven other wise.... Skeptical until proven otherwise is how we survive."

          Perhaps skepticism is not the best paradigm for science. Selfless restraint would seem a better approach. Skepticism includes "doubt" and doubt is a bias. A scientist should be unbiased. The more neutral "restraint" would better serve this function. And there are different kinds of skepticism -- skeptical restraint, self-indulgent ridicule, dismissiveness, and the like.

          With the "reject things until proven otherwise" approach, science would be greatly limited to subjects within the existing realm of a science or to accidental discovery. Albert Einstein once said that imagination was more important than knowledge. With imagination, you try on things that have been unproven. Without that, we likely wouldn't have relativity or quantum mechanics.

          1. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            The examples I gave were in the real world. Not science. In a controlled environment things are different. Still - I suspect a few scientists have blown themselves to bits testing things that were unproven.

            As I said - not a good survival trait. wink

          2. Beelzedad profile image57
            Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Skepticism does not mean one has a limited or non-existent imagination. It simply means one does not swallow everything one hears, especially when it comes to ultimate knowledge.  smile

            1. profile image0
              Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              You're right as long as skepticism does not lead to cynicism.

              Some people who believe in God don't do so because they have been told. It's not always just blind faith. Sometimes it is through personal experience.


              My cousin Joanne had a baby boy. When he was born he had hydrocephalus, a condition where fluids constantly collect in and around the brain. His head was swollen due to the extreme excess fluids. They put in a permanent port and drained the fluids once a week. They had a hard time keeping up with it. When he was a little over 2 1/2 years old, the doctors told Joanne that her son would probably die from it because they couldn't drain enough of the fluids and the brain was swelling too much. (this leads to death because the skull presses the brain during swelling.) His skull had already enlarged. They said there was no way he could live past 3-4 years old.

              I met with some people and we prayed for him..with faith...At his next visit, the doctors could not drain any fluid from his brain and he got better and better..
              Though swelling of the brain can cause permanent brain damage..for him there was none.

              Today, he is 15 years old and just made the Dean's List in school.

              Faith is when we align both sides of the brain as one in thought...seeing it as fact. Whatever the force I refer to is, it healed Joanne's son.
              To me, this is God.

              1. Beelzedad profile image57
                Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                I don't think there is anything wrong in questioning ones motives, but perhaps you're referring more to an ultimate distrust of the person no matter what they say?

                Lookin' good. smile

                1. profile image0
                  Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, that is what I meant. Distrust of people, information and motives.

                  You too handsome.

                  1. Beelzedad profile image57
                    Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                    That's very true, the handsome part, I mean. wink

                    I think there's a problem with distrust, especially on a forum where none of us are actually face to face with each other.

                    There's another problem of what it is to distrust. There can be disinformation being spread knowingly and disinformation being spread under the guise of belief. The difficult part is trying to discern one from the other. smile

              2. profile image61
                paarsurreyposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Hi friend  Deborah Sexton

                I agree with you.

                Both medicine and prayer help to cure one. It would be foolish to do one and leave the other. Curing ( in Arabic As-Shafi or the Curer)is an attribut of the Creator -God Allah YHWH. Prayer could do wonders if one uses all the means available also; the means are also created by God for our use.

                I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran

                Thanks

                I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

                1. Pcunix profile image93
                  Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Prayer never cured anyone of anything.  That has been demonstrated over and over again with double blind studies.

                  If you doubt that, chop off a finger and try praying it back.  Not going to happen.


                  But even if it did, it would be more logical to conclude that we have some not yet understood healing ability than to conjure up imaginary super beings.

              3. Pcunix profile image93
                Pcunixposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                Sure.  And plenty of other people prayed for their loved ones and THEY DIED.

                Prayer doesn't cure disease.  Ever.

                1. aguasilver profile image81
                  aguasilverposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  You speak from ignorance, because prayer works and that's a fact that has been observed in hospitals where some have been prayed for and other not, the results showed a marked improvement where prayer was applied AND THOSE BEING PRAYED FOR HAD FAITH.

                  But prayer is only part of the matter, or else believers could pray over hospitals and empty them... FAITH is a key element in healing.

            2. ceciliabeltran profile image74
              ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              one must trust his own measures of believability, i find that skepticism is a great motivator to expand understanding. it has a role.

    3. lone77star profile image87
      lone77starposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Deborah Sexton said, "I would think that most scientist are agnostics not atheist."

      An interesting point. If a scientist uses professional acumen in their private beliefs, I might agree. Some scientists are also atheists as a personal belief, just as there are some scientists who are devoutly religious. Agnosticism would seem the scientific view, though.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Agnosticism is the very antithesis of the scientific view.

  9. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    You've to admit that you've no idea about big-bang and singularity concept.Because your statement"where did the radiation come from?" makes no sense if you know about it.


    Any idea about Hermaphroditic Fish? any idea about fishes that change gender ?


    Everything ? many species extincted because of "lack of urge for survival". So your question in opposition to the "origin of life" is just ignorance. Try to find answers before you throw these questions as unsolved.

  10. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    So what's the point here ? Making scientist agnostic for the sake of 50/50 chance ? I mean that way it's easy to bend on religious fantasies right ?

    Oh wait, Weinberg, Sagan,feyman,james watson and many other scientist...are agnostic ?

    Is it fair to judge a person based on his religious-beliefs ? So if scientists are doing some good contribution then they must be agnostic cause it fits theory in my mind and helps me get support against atheists.Yeah, exactly..

    1. pisean282311 profile image60
      pisean282311posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      i am not saying that...it is never fair to judge person on basis of religious beliefs and i completely agree to it on that point but i also believe that religion and god are two different matters...it is my personal opinion...i believe religion is human made ...but i dont rule out existence of god either...what i believe is that it is possibility of intelligent design and that can be debated..thats my personal opinion...

  11. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    This subject was done to death by the religionists months ago. It made no sense then or now.
    Dna is already being improved upon in medicine.

  12. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago

    Skyfire wrote:
    "You've to admit that you've no idea about big-bang and singularity concept.Because your statement"where did the radiation come from?" makes no sense if you know about it. "
    _________________________________________________________________

    My Answer
    Poor Skyfire..you have no idea. The Big Bang theory is part of my belief system.
    It means that a small fireball of radiation in great density formed, expanded and cooled down really fast then slowed down as the subatomic particles condensed into matter. The Universe and Galaxies were, according to theory, formed this way.

    If you read my hubs you will find I have already written about this.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Skyfire wrote
    "Any idea about Hermaphroditic Fish? any idea about fishes that change gender ?"

    My Answer
    Yes, I am aware of Hermaphrodites…however they contain both male and female traits as stated. So your statement you obviously don't understand, proves nothing.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    Skyfire wrote
    "Everything ? many species extincted because of "lack of urge for survival". So your question in opposition to the "origin of life" is just ignorance. Try to find answers before you throw these questions as unsolved"

    My Answer
    No species died because of the lack of the self survival urge. Any that died, were weak and/or killed off..
    And you call me ignorant. Amazing.


    Your name calling, simply because I disagree with your ideas,  shows me you aren't very "evolved"

  13. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    I agree with mark..on this one.


    Really ? is that the case ? you said everything is in pair right ? i showed you there are mixed genders and change in gender as well that proves your statement as flawed. Have you thought about that before making that sweeping statement ?


    What "survival of fittest" meant to you  btw ?
    Ever heard of dodo ?



    Name calling ? care to show me that ? I like escapism but "name-calling" as in personal attack, i would like to know where in this thread i made that for you.

    1. profile image0
      Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You agree with Mark? I have no doubt. However I haven't yet read what he said. State your own theories, not Marks. My definition is accurate.

      Now you are putting words in my mouth.
      A lot of people here like to say something another didn't say.
      Where did I say pairs?
      Please point me to this. I said Male and Female.

      You don't see that calling me ignorant..as name calling?

      I will start mirroring your words and actions if you would like.
      I have a lot of stamina.

      1. skyfire profile image74
        skyfireposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        There you go :

        1. profile image0
          Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          There I go what?
          I was answering your remarks to me.
          What's the problem?
          Should I bow down and agree with you?

          1. skyfire profile image74
            skyfireposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            I posted your quote which was flawed cause you asked for it.


            That was not intended as personal remark if you can read as it was pointed toward your statement.If you think i'm wrong with that pointer, let me know if i'm being ignorant for that assumption of yours. I'm open to any references that proves your point. 



            You don't need to. I didn't planned to show that flaw in your statements to change your way of thinking. You can continue to post "How is it that everything comes in male and female?" and call me ignorant and mirror my words and actions. I enjoy the game and i've nothing personal against players.

            1. profile image0
              Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

              There is no flaw in my statement. Sorry...

              I'm done here. I came as a voice of reason.

  14. profile image0
    Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago

    Mark Knowles wrote:
    "Aww - so we should LOL take your word that in spite of the 100% total lack of evidence - it is now a theory that 100% lack of proof means something does not exist. Santa is real now? And the easter bunny and the tooth fairy? ? Just a theory that they do not? Deary me……"
    _______________________________________________________________
    My Answer
    First, your sentence #1 says the same as sentence #2.
    You have no proof there is no God. As I said, neither side can prove there is or isn't a God. To think you can prove there isn't is delusional as I have already stated.
    A true scientist does not close his/her mind.  I would think that a scientist searches for truth/facts. To say nothing is held true until proven would indicate agnosticism not atheism. To prove would indicate a search..not a closed mind.

    Your remarks are so childish and you apparently have nothing to offer but insults. Why don't you grow up. You're older then a lot of people here.
    _______________________________________________________________
    Mark Wrote
    "Sorry you are unable to understand what words mean.

    A-theism.
    Lack of belief in a god or gods. "
    _______________________________________________________________
    My Answer
    That is your own definition of an Atheist. It is not what the dictionary says.
    My dictionary is on my Mac computer that my son bought for me two months ago. It's a G-6. The dictionary is very current and accurate.
    According to it, as stated.
    atheism
    noun
    the theory or belief that God does not exist.
    _______________________________________________________________

    Mark Knowles wrote
    Gosh you guys are getting desperate. Still- quote some stuff from an old book or something. That should make you feel clever. wink

    I have a new word for you to learn as well. I am surprised it was left out of your biology science degree:

    A-sexual.

    Guess what it means? wink
    _______________________________________________________________

    My Answer

    What book?
    Yes I am aware of asexual, however I'm not speaking of spores and bacteria.
    I am speaking of those who are aware they have a mind. However even the cells that split and the bacteria that are non-haploid contain all that is needed to reproduce and survive. And this does not take away from what I have said.

    Do you try to get people to dislike you? That's not really a good thing, however you seem to think it is.


    You have not disproved anything...

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      LOL

      So what? The burden of proof is yours. Semantics does not help. And I do not care that you need to redefine words to suit your ridiculous beliefs.

      1. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        You don't even know what my beliefs are.
        You stated in another thread that you studied Kabbalah (I don't believe this because I doubt you could grasp it)

        I'm a Kabbalist. We believe in natural forces and we see God as the force of nature.

      2. profile image0
        Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        The burden is also on you.
        You state this all the time and you know why?
        Because you know you have/there is no proof.

        Now if you, as you state don't believe something until it is proven..how is it you believe there is no God? It's not proven..

        Please lay down your same old remarks you've used since you have been here and try to move forward.

        An open mind is a great thing to have.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          LOL

          Dear me. Ask your husband to explain about "burden of proof". wink

          It belongs to you.

          I don't blame you mind - the burden of proof is a pesky thing for you guys. Better to have a fight and use semantics I guess.

          "Open minded" is not "believing what I really really want to be true to give my pathetic life some meaning."

          Remember - burden of proof. On you.....

          ciao. got to go to work now. In France. Next to Italy. lol

          1. profile image0
            Deborah Sextonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            Too sad!!!

  15. skyfire profile image74
    skyfireposted 7 years ago

    There is a flaw and if there isn't any then i would like to know how it's not a flaw.

    And the reason i agreed with mark when you posted your explanation about big-bang(it wasn't about me agreeing what mark's theory is but about what theists in general formulate their theory for origin of species/universe). Fair enough, you're done with this anyway.

  16. TLMinut profile image61
    TLMinutposted 7 years ago

    QUOTE:
    There's another problem of what it is to distrust. There can be disinformation being spread knowingly and disinformation being spread under the guise of belief.

    These would be the same thing; the second example should probably be 'disinformation being spread due to wrong belief/ignorance'. A lot of wrong information is spouted just because someone heard something and believed it, then put it out there as true BEFORE they checked into it.

    1. Beelzedad profile image57
      Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      They are not the same thing at all. The second is spreading disinformation due to belief, for example, making claims that evolution is wrong because god created people as they are today. smile

      Pointless semantics, indeed.

      1. TLMinut profile image61
        TLMinutposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        But using "under the guise of belief" means they're only pretending to believe it, that isn't separate from deliberately spreading disinformation.

        1. Beelzedad profile image57
          Beelzedadposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          I see where I went wrong here, in that I failed to mention that the "guise" is not on the part of the believer, but the assertion made by the receiver.

          It's difficult to know whether or not they are pretending, that could be anyone's guess. smile

      2. ceciliabeltran profile image74
        ceciliabeltranposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I would call the denial more than deliberate spreading of wrong information. I understand how it is so frustrating that an incredible advancement in knowledge is being sabotaged by those who fear its implications to their precious world view. But that's a human weakness. We are all sometimes reluctant to let go of past learning. That's why it very important to not be attached to knowledge ends, rather to see it as puzzle pieces that form a yet an unfinished whole.

  17. TLMinut profile image61
    TLMinutposted 7 years ago

    Yes, the above post is pointless semantics, I just didn't want to leave it sounding as if there were only two choices of what to distrust.

  18. TLMinut profile image61
    TLMinutposted 7 years ago

    Earnest, are you the OP? Or is there a post missing? I ask because there's no statement of how the DNA code proves intelligent design; neither is there a refutation with a basis. What is it about the DNA code that is claimed as evidence for intelligent design (maybe the fact that it follows human language rules? the idea that codes need designers?) and what specifically do you disagree with?

    If you merely responded first to a statement someone used as a title with no post, this question is directed to that person.

    1. peterxdunn profile image61
      peterxdunnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Some information about dna. Did you know that as people age the dna molecule degenerates: it gets sort of ragged at the ends, with every iteration? There is an exception though. Cancer is caused by mutant dna that replicates itself successfully (with benign tumours the dna doesn't). The weird thing about the dna found in cancer cells is that it doesn't degenerate. If cancer didn't kill its host organism  the cancer cells would be virtually immortal.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        NO I am not the OP. smile
        DNA is a mess, always was apparently.

        Medical science is already making changes to it, and I hold that our DNA actually survives better if it kills us off.
        This is known as "dirty DNA"

        Have a read of some current medical information or listen to the science shows on the BBC to find the truth.

        A list of immune deficiencies and diseases that will be wiped out by adjustments to our DNA will be exhaustive within 5 years or so. smile
        The program needs a re-write as it is full of "viruses" smile

      2. profile image0
        Baileybearposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Cancer is an example of how evolution is "short-sighted" and lacks design.  Cells multiply out of control and kill the host - not very intelligent.

        Viruses and bacteria use "DNA code too" - how is that intelligent design?

 
working