Uyi Iredia:

Some of these biologists e.g Lynn Margulis & Barbara Mcclintock where ignored for a while because of the challenge their findings of the DNA code proferred to traditional Darwinism. I'd'sts don't bother about the nature of the intelligence since it isoutside the scope of their work. Rest assured that I'm well aware that evolutionists are fond of painting I'd'sts as creationists.

They were ignored because of the challenge? Please tell me what these challenges were and show me how they were ignored.
You have to know the nature of the intelligence to tell that something was designed. e.g is the sun intelligently designed?
If you don't think intelligent design creationists are creationists, then why don't you simply tell me what you think they claim the intelligence did?

Uyi Iredia:
Demonstrate this misunderstanding, follow your own advice, explain how I misunderstood the code. I never made the claim that the DNA was initially made in the human mind. You must have made a mistake in apprehending my first post. I was trying to say an intelligence akin to or greater than the human mind. MY typing error there has been corrected.

I have done that. Here read my post that you were quoting and not the emphasis.

thehomer:
. . . .
Your claim is based on a misunderstanding of what a code actually is. Also note that you explicitly said you were making an inductive inference to a human mind.
I know it is a code and what I've said to you here and on other posts is that the fact that DNA can be represented as a code today doesn't mean it was initially conceived of as a code in a human mind.

How did I misunderstand you? This is what you actually said.

Uyi Iredia:
. . . .
There is only one thing with the capacity to produce code and that is the human mind. We ID'sts simply make an inductive inference to the human mind. Since codes come from human minds & the DNA is the base of a coding system then the DNA was designed by an intelligence a human mind. Unfortunately, because of how this alludes to a God this theory is opposed. The usual method is by denying that DNA has a coding system and saying it's just a molecule.

Did I misunderstand you or did you misunderstand your own post?

Intelligent design has been put on trial. The judge, after weeks of intensive debate, judged that intelligent deisgn falls short on everything and is not science. It is microwaved religion, nothing more.

Extra scare for creationists: DNA. It proves creationism wrong on all accounts.

thehomer:

They were ignored because of the challenge? Please tell me what these challenges were and show me how they were ignored.
You have to know the nature of the intelligence to tell that something was designed. e.g is the sun intelligently designed?
If you don't think intelligent design creationists are creationists, then why don't you simply tell me what you think they claim the intelligence did?

They make inference that it was intelligently designed not to an intelligence.

thehomer: I have done that. Here read my post that you were quoting and not the emphasis.

You haven't. As a matter of fact it is the bolded I wanted you to explain.

thehomer: How did I misunderstand you? This is what you actually said.

Read properly. I said: "I never made the claim that the DNA was initially made in the human mind."

thehomer: Did I misunderstand you or did you misunderstand your own post?

You misunderstood me.

Uyi Iredia:

They make inference that it was intelligently designed not to an intelligence.

You cannot tell whether or not something is intelligently designed without knowing something about the designer's intentions or methods or something along those lines.

Uyi Iredia:
You haven't. As a matter of fact it is the bolded I wanted you to explain.

This is what I said.

thehomer:
I know it is a code and what I've said to you here and on other posts is that the fact that DNA can be represented as a code today doesn't mean it was initially conceived of as a code in a human mind.

Now, what do you not understand in the above sentence?

Uyi Iredia:
Read properly. I said: "I never made the claim that the DNA was initially made in the human mind."

You misunderstood me.

Obviously, you're being deliberately dishonest or being illogical.
This is what you said.

Uyi Iredia:
There is only one thing with the capacity to produce code and that is the human mind. We ID'sts simply make an inductive inference to the human mind. Since codes come from human minds & the DNA is the base of a coding system then the DNA was designed by an intelligence a human mind. Unfortunately, because of how this alludes to a God this theory is opposed. The usual method is by denying that DNA has a coding system and saying it's just a molecule.

How can you say this and say you never said it? Have you read through your own posts?
Did you or did you not say what is in bold in your quote?
I really have no time for such dishonesty.

RUBBISH!!!What is so intelligent about earthquakes,tornados,poisonous plants,radioactive materials,lightning that strikes innocent people on the ground?.....................brainwashed christians!!!

thehomer:

You cannot tell whether or not something is intelligently designed without knowing something about the designer's intentions or methods or something along those lines.

Not necessarily. You are simply making a statement intended to oppose my comments. Forensic science is an example of an OD science.

thehomer: This is what I said.



Now, what do you not understand in the above sentence?

Explain the bolded in your last comment.

thehomer: Obviously, you're being deliberately dishonest or being illogical.
This is what you said.



[quote author=thehomer]How can you say this and say you never said it? Have you read through your own posts?
Did you or did you not say what is in bold in your quote?


I really have no time for such dishonesty.

There's a difference between what I wrote initially and my reply to you afterwards.

Uyi Iredia:

Not necessarily. You are simply making a statement intended to oppose my comments. Forensic science is an example of an OD science.

What is OD science?

Uyi Iredia:
Explain the bolded in your last comment.

What bolded in my last comment don't you understand?

What difference are you talking about?

Here too, it looks as if you really have nothing to say and just wish to throw out some seemingly deep questions. If you cannot take the time to carefully formulate your responses, then I won't be wasting my time entertaining your laziness.