coded information in DNA

It seems that the posters to that thread have refuted his argument. And he has not returned to defend his position.If you disagree, perhaps you could tell us -- in your own words -- why you disagree.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You realize, I hope, that what you are presenting is creation "science" rather than real science.You also are preaching, rather than presenting scientific evidence. Scientists don't write as you do, with constant references to unsubstantiated myths and mythical beings as if they were real and had been documented. All you need to do is add "Amen" and your sermons will be complete.In fact, creation "science" is the exact opposite of real science, as it starts with a conclusion (which not surprisingly mirrors the bible, scripture, and divine revelation) and then seeks to "prove" that conclusion through all manner of distortions, misrepresentations, fabrications, obfuscation, beliefs presented as fact, outright delusions, appeal to authority, and the rest of the methods used by creation "science." Creation "scientists" have to use those methods, as science and the scientific method contradicts creation "science" at just about every turn.Another point on which creation "science" is the opposite of real science, and this can be seen in this thread: creation "scientists" are not able to change their beliefs based on new or contradictory scientific evidence because those beliefs weren't based on scientific evidence in the first place. They are religious beliefs, which will be held in spite of any and all scientific evidence to the contrary.But thanks for playing.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

If you're doing a summary post, you left out "Amen."Because that's what you're doing is presenting us with your religious beliefs (witnessing?) wrapped up in any science that you feel supports those beliefs, while ignoring the vast majority of science that contradicts them.Just as you have ignored the refutations that were presented in this thread.Creation "science" at its best, eh?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Back in post #306 I wrote:

quote:

---

If you're doing a summary post, you left out "Amen."

​

Because that's what you're doing is presenting us with your religious beliefs (witnessing?) wrapped up in any science that you feel supports those beliefs, while ignoring the vast majority of science that contradicts them.

---

In post #307 you took issue with this:

quote:

---

My religious / theological beliefs have nothing to do with this argument.

---

Which brings us to your post #310, in which you wrote:

quote:

---

There is no logical choice other than the information came from outside the material universe; that it came from an uncaused cause; and that the cause itself is both code and a designer. Which brings us to

​

John 1:1: "In the beginning was the WORD and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. And through Him all things were made. Everything we know about DNA leads us to Jesus Christ."

​

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

​

Joh 1:14 And the Word (information) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

​

Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word (information) of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

​

Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

---

You are witnessing! You are not presenting scientific data.You are cherry picking creationist misrepresentations of scientific data and bringing that tripe to us in support of your religious beliefs.And you are ignoring refutations of your posts, just as you are ignoring any evidence that contradicts your religious beliefs. This much is very clear from your posts.In short, you are presenting us with creation "science" in a forum devoted to real science.The sum total of your efforts can only be described as witnessing; you are practicing religious apologetics, not science.(I'm not impressed.)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.