Training Trees Game

[justlookinla]

I think you should play the game.

I think we should recognize that when programming is present, intelligence is present.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe takes a huge and totally unnecessary detour. It only makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

LOL. You believe you can design a giraffe? LOL.

Did I say that? Did I even imply that? This is why you do so badly at debate.

We certainly established design in the thread....and in the one subsequent to it.

Really? In what post? All I ever saw was you failing terribly.

Evidence for what?

And thank you for proving my point. You have no understanding of what evidence is. I can help you with that problem of yours.

 

[justlookinla]

The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe takes a huge and totally unnecessary detour. It only makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

Did I say that? Did I even imply that? This is why you do so badly at debate.



Really? In what post? All I ever saw was you failing terribly.



And thank you for proving my point. You have no understanding of what evidence is. I can help you with that problem of yours.

And the usual mountains of nothing from you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think we should recognize that when programming is present, intelligence is present.

Luckily for us DNA is not a programming. And you really should try play the game. You might learn something.

 

[justlookinla]

Luckily for us DNA is not a programming. And you really should try play the game. You might learn something.

Yes, DNA is programming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the usual mountains of nothing from you.

Wrong again, there was evidence. It sailed right past you. Since you can't spot evidence when it is presented to you why do you even bother to ask for any?

Again, I can help you with that problem of yours.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong again, there was evidence. It sailed right past you. Since you can't spot evidence when it is presented to you why do you even bother to ask for any?

Again, I can help you with that problem of yours.

Nothing doesn't help anyone.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, DNA is programming.

Nope, just because some have used that term in a colloquial sense does not mean that it is programming. I know that you are unable to support your claim. Too bad that your understanding of scientific evidence is so lacking. I can help you with that problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing doesn't help anyone.

I know you have nothing, but I can still help you.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, just because some have used that term in a colloquial sense does not mean that it is programming. I know that you are unable to support your claim. Too bad that your understanding of scientific evidence is so lacking. I can help you with that problem.

Simply saying that DNA isn't programming isn't offering anything. As usual, your responses are mountains of nothing.

 

[justlookinla]

I know you have nothing, but I can still help you.

Your nothing doesn't help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your nothing doesn't help.

And yet we all know that you are the one with nothing.

Do you remember how all of the creationists ran away from the concept of scientific evidence. I know it is a scary concept, but I know that you can understand it if you try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Simply saying that DNA isn't programming isn't offering anything. As usual, your responses are mountains of nothing.

Here is the problem, you made a positive claim. That DNA is "programming". You offered no evidence at all. All it takes to refute an idea that is presented without evidence is simple denial. The burden of proof is upon you.



This is an idea related to that of evidence. As I said, I can help you with that.

 

[justlookinla]

And yet we all know that you are the one with nothing.

Do you remember how all of the creationists ran away from the concept of scientific evidence. I know it is a scary concept, but I know that you can understand it if you try.

I remember how, for quite a few months now, you've given mountains of nothing.

 

[justlookinla]

Here is the problem, you made a positive claim. That DNA is "programming". You offered no evidence at all. All it takes to refute an idea that is presented without evidence is simple denial. The burden of proof is upon you.

http://www.mrsec.psu.edu/education/nano-activities/dna/dnas_secret_code/dnas_secret_code.pdf

This is an idea related to that of evidence. As I said, I can help you with that.

Sure you can. Mountains of nothing is just that....nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I remember how, for quite a few months now, you've given mountains of nothing.

Wrong, you just showed that you don't recognize evidence when it is presented to you. I could do it again. Meanwhile you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. You did not understand it, I explained it for you. You still did not understand it.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong, you just showed that you don't recognize evidence when it is presented to you. I could do it again. Meanwhile you do not seem to understand the burden of proof. You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. You did not understand it, I explained it for you. You still did not understand it.

Second time....

http://www.mrsec.psu.edu/education/nano-activities/dna/dnas_secret_code/dnas_secret_code.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://www.mrsec.psu.edu/education/nano-activities/dna/dnas_secret_code/dnas_secret_code.pdf



Sure you can. Mountains of nothing is just that....nothing.

Nice try, but again the words "code" and "programming" are merely being used in a colloquial manner. That article is written for lay people. Lay articles are heavily laced with colloquialisms. Can you do better than that? Something that actually shows that DNA was written by a programmer? Actually you don't need to since we understand how mutations can add new traits to DNA, no programmer needed. Just this once I will give you some articles if you ask nicely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Second time....

http://www.mrsec.psu.edu/education/nano-activities/dna/dnas_secret_code/dnas_secret_code.pdf

And still a failure on your part. See above post.

 

[justlookinla]

Nice try, but again the words "code" and "programming" are merely being used in a colloquial manner. That article is written for lay people. Lay articles are heavily laced with colloquialisms. Can you do better than that? Something that actually shows that DNA was written by a programmer? Actually you don't need to since we understand how mutations can add new traits to DNA, no programmer needed. Just this once I will give you some articles if you ask nicely.

LOL! Of course it's not being used in a "colloquial manner". It's a paper produced by Penn State University which specifically and repeatedly establishes the programming aspect of DNA.

Maybe you should contact Penn State and straighten them out on their "colloquial manner".