Be patient. There is much merriment to be enjoyed with his ilk, if one knows how. 
My bad. I asserted you were intelligent. If you have no intelligence, then youâre right, DNA has none. Fits perfectly with your origins theory of intelligence stemming from non-intelligence, that we design AI.
DNA that writes code for the compiler that encodes itself, what AI seeks to achieve with deep learning, has no intelligence in your world. Iâd like to meet you in your world. Smh.
Smh. Laughable when someone suggests TO for critical study on evolution, and shows youâre neither a core scientist nor ready for in-depth analysis but only gathering unfiltered superficial info. You probably occupy yourself with other things leaving you little time for such although that wouldnât be an excuse for a matter as important as your soulâs security. For your sake, hereâs the fastest of the critiques on TO I found not that I propose creationism for that. Refute TO
TO is pure propaganda and uses counters against flimsy and outrageous creationist arguments to validate its argument, mere strawmanning, without presenting important info on the uncertainties and limitations of the evo theory but many half-truths instead. Prolly why it seems obsolete.
Again thereâs nothing like overwhelming evidence/proof for evo rhetoric but only many findings with subjective interpretations. Such misconception stems from a lack of training in the scientific method.
Again, evolutionists consistently shift the goalpost by alternating the definition of evolution between mere adaptation and trans-speciation, an interpolation from prejudice, to make findings like the fossil record support their rhetoric, as is not the case.
You really should go do a thorough study on evolution from both sides of the arguments. That alone will help you understand why Darwinian evo is not proven but only accepted by a camp.
Such is not the case with logically deduced facts and laws which every scientist must accept without argument.
Youâre an atheist cause you donât want to ever investigate the validity of creator for loosing your freedom and having accountability. If you believe in your emotions, conscience etc. you canât see or touch, you can relate with creator that exact way. Faith is a more tangible substrate than these. The question is if youâre willing to.
The fossil record establishes common descent and adaptation not trans-speciation.
I almost applauded you but oops!, missed a spot. The interpretation by evolutionists will have to first be established by the findings without prejudiced interpolation, letting facts interpret themselves.
Since you donât know about it, donât bother. Just know that science has proposed a point where our current space-time logic disappears.
Laugh less, when in ignorance, Iâd suggest, dear Sheldon. Validity is tied to reality/existence. Logic derives from self-evident reality and towards deduced reality. Go figure!
Faith is utterly useless if you believe itâs blind belief, and well, thatâs blind belief too because you could find out what faith is but choose not to.
The undergirding yardstick of reality is consciousness. Whatever weâre conscious of is self-evident reality. Learn boy, these are not derived by logic but from which we develop logic to deduce derived realities. This is why faith, like matter, isnât to be logically deduced. A little baby knows mama is real because itâs aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real, not by logic but by our consciousness of it.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be âhow to contactâ. It is not about believing any claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one werenât and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.
Youâre well informed but need training to correctly apply it.
Let us now reconsider the ten questions of which for reasons best known to you, you avoided the all important final three.
1. Does the Singularity not point to an existence beyond the current coordinate system and material plane?
2. Does it not show the limitation of current logic to account for existence beyond?
3. Isnât the material plane considered real firstly because we are in some way conscious of it ever before logic?
4. Is logic then the absolute determinant of existence or derived from a precedent viz. consciousness?
5. Are there other modes of consciousness asides our physical senses?
6. Is this material plane all weâre conscious of?
7. If ID is evidenced in human intelligence, the bodyâs design and all lower intelligence littered across the universe, then as per the human-robot analogy, could there be a higher intelligence across the singularity?
8. If such higher intelligence is, and would relate with us, is it possible that in our design is ability to transcend this plane?
9. If so, could there be weaved into us, faculties beyond our physical body?
10. Are we conscious of any such faculties in us even if not logically determined?
Are we conscious of:
i. a moral centre/conscience, poking us from time to time, guiding us also?
ii. an emotional centre for fear, anger, hate, anguish, worry etc., causal of the chemicals our bodies release with these?
iii. a metaphysical sense for dreams and visions, ESP?
iv. an imaginative centre?
v. a centre of desire for satisfaction and pleasure, which is the seat of boredom?
vi. A cognitive centre, affecting choice, causal to the brainâs directing the body towards imagined action.
If you really wanna go deep on faith, try seriously considering these questions.
I cannot answer these questions for anyone but any who would understand faith must answer these himself and then ask how faith is to be contacted, like his emotions are.
Sheldon over to you, you determine if we go further, chit-chat and tirades will not pay. If you ask the right questions, I can answer, elseâŚ
Someone went off their medication!
eta: I showed the sentence to my wife, and I learned a new word.
schizophasia : the disorganized speech characteristic of schizophrenia
1 Like
Oh really? Iâve seen you post here before. Would you mind stepping in? Sheldon has gotten mighty boring
I appreciate the assertion; however, when I consider the source I simply have to chuckle. Yes, I can see how someone like you would make that mistake.
DNA is not a code . DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. It is a chemical interaction and a natural process. NOT INTELLIGENCE
2 Likes
Straw man fallacy, since I never claimed to be either. Though we all note the duplicitous way you dismiss the very objective evidence you requested, whilst offering none for your bat shit crazy creatard fantasies.
Lying again, the theory of evolution contains nothing but objective evidence. That is what scientific theories are.
Bullshit, Iâm an atheist because there is zero evidence for god fantasies, and it is axiomatic that their ubiquitous creation by humans stems from ignorance and superstition. As your posts amply demonstrate.
2 Likes
So it was bullshit you made up, I thought as much.
Try referencing a dictionary once in a while you cretin.
I agree your blind faith is irrational, though why youâre repeating this back to me only you can know, Bullwinkle.
1 Like
Denial can give us the same lens and truth isnât nasty, dear friend. Itâs denial that causes torture, misrepresenting it. Plus you guysâ problem is you really came with a prejudice from whatever previous encounters you may have had with âtheistsâ. If youâd simply try read my posts, I donât claim uncertainty of evolutionism validates creationism. I have all through only tried to invalidate the false security in it and suggest empirical validation of faith.
Nonsense, you were given every chance, as is everyone who comes here. And nothing youâve posted indicates an honest desire to pursue the truth. There is no bias on my part, thatâs a lie, I treat all claims the same.
You have no valid objections to evolution, nor does any other creationist, that is axiomatic, otherwise they would falsify it and we would all know, as that is how the scientific method works.
The idea your risible denials of evolution are not motivated by your belief in creationist myths is absurd, but all means list all the other scientific facts you deny, that donât in any way contradict any part of your religious beliefs?
While youâre at list ten beliefs you hold without any shred of objective evidence, but that form no part of your religious beliefs.
This stuff may convince the gullible sheeple, but the atheists here are on the whole far too well informed to be taken in.
1 Like
Hahahahaha 
YOU approach science like a theist âŚ
What the fuck in science do you think gives âusâ a sense of âsecurityâ LOL
Your imaginative invisible sky daddy whispers in your ear and âtickles your fancyâ ⌠âDonât worry child, I got thisâŚâ
Rotflmao
OMG I should have read further - oh fuck, priceless!
Funniest fucking thing Iâve read in a looonnnggg time
Fairy Godmother is pleased with your efforts but gives you a big fat âFâ for fail!
Oh GOD hahahahaha - fuck âŚ
Oh man - went outside to have a smoke 
⌠still canât stop laughing at this âŚ
Thanks 
. You may not be science smart or bible smart or (I donât know - maybe you have âsome lifeâ smarts, like putting food in your mouth and sleeping). BUT Christ you are a funny guyâŚ
OK. Try going for a smoke again.
How are they not embarrassed to not know basic concepts you can Google in a few seconds.
A law isnât better than a theory , or vice versa. Theyâre just different, and in the end, all that matters is that theyâre used correctly. ⌠For example, evolution is a law â the law tells us that it happens but doesnât describe how or why. A theory describes how and why something happens
Only an ignorant creatard would think a scientific law is a linear progression from a scientific theory.
Dear oh fucking dear
Though scientific laws and theories are supported by a large body of empirical data, accepted by the majority of scientists within that area of scientific study and help to unify it, they are not the same thing.
"Laws are descriptions â often mathematical descriptions â of natural phenomenon; for example, Newtonâs Law of Gravity or Mendelâs Law of Independent Assortment. These laws simply describe the observation. Not how or why they work, said Coppinger.
empirical
adjective
- based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
Faith
Noun
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof
Christ on a bike but creatards are dumb.
Then please, do not suggest, but provide empirical proof of faith.
1 Like
The only one who is being boring here is you, with your robotic parroting of known canards and misrepresentations of scientific postulates. Iâve seen your ilk before, and recognise the aetiology of a shill for the Duplicity Institute.
1 Like
As I said before, no shame in learning. I learn everyday too.
But if you guys keep attempting @ law Vs theory, youâll only keep revealing your lack of training in science.
Evolutionism is a theory else every single scientist must be bound by it. Science is not politics and not about numbers but is objective. LMAO. Consider.
Gravity, Upthrust, Thermodynamics, are laws. Evolutionism is a mere subjective attempt to make sense of objective findings. It is interpretation of facts. Itâs been revised over and over and will be revised many more times with new findings till we arrive at truth.
Natural selection, adaptation, common descent are validated. It is such evolution that every scientist accepts as fact, even creationists. They can be theorised exclusive of trans-speciation. Trans-speciation from Darwinism is a theory and has never been validated and is the bone of contention with creationists.
As for faith, always learn to go to source when seeking true answers. Funny one of you quoted it first and now I expound on it, goalposts weâre shifted to juxtapose from dictionary which can only explain material things. Itâs like checking an encyclopedia to know what heaven looks like. LMAO. Once again, faith, as defined by source viz. proven men of faith, Heb 11:1, will only be validated empirically, using a method Iâll suggest to the one serious enough to answer all ten questions sincerely.
When they all come for you recycling unnecessary questions but avoid yours, know it poked them real good.
Well, itâs all good seeing how you all stand up for each other and came to Sheldonâs help. Something you only get to enjoy on this side of death, not in the afterlife. Perhaps you could all invite some more sincere atheists who might want to arrive at the experience of the substrate, faith, and arenât scared to look into these questions or you can keep going in your circles mentioning me if it makes you feel better.
Wish you all the best nonetheless.
Gravity and thermodynamics have been revised many times as well. Which kind of lets the air out of the tires of your argument, imo.
1 Like