Way To Make Us Proud Ms. Angle!

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Sam

It is called bloodless jihad.
The idea is to have a large enough Muslim population in a city or neighborhood so that sharia law becomes the local law. It is my understanding that there are areas in Europe where local areas are under sharia law.

Angle is setting fund raising records. It seems Reid faces extinction.
People in Nevada want to get rid of Reid. He is bad news.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

Is your theory testible? Is it falsifiable? Until you can show it, it remains wishfull thinking. It is not science. science is "observible".

Yes, it is testable. In the links above, they have accomplished this by creating a synthetic life. They can also test if with computer models.

It is a silly question, really. Anything is testable. I mean, I could put a man to sleep, take one of his ribs and try to create life with it. It would be useless to try that, but that theory is definitely testable also. It would just fail pretty quickly, lol.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

Man-made DNA has booted up a cell for the first time.

Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...#ixzz12HWMlUUP

Darwinuism teaches common ancestry. How did yeast "form" itself and become sel;f replication on it's own? No human involvement?

You know you just re-posted my link, right?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

You know you just re-posted my link, right?

That is correct. I read the link at wired. It clearly said the yeast was man made. DNA

It tells us that your claim was false. In the beginning there were no men with microscopes to assemble assorted and selected amino acids and DNA to create synthetic life.

By FAITH, evolutions claim life formed itself from non life from some primordial soup.

This thread is about politics in Nevada.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Yes, it is testable. In the links above, they have accomplished this by creating a synthetic life. They can also test if with computer models.It is a silly question, really. Anything is testable. I mean, I could put a man to sleep, take one of his ribs and try to create life with it. It would be useless to try that, but that theory is definitely testable also. It would just fail pretty quickly, lol.

Now the big lie. Computor models. I wrote software and created programs using a scientific language fortran in the early 70's. All models are based on human assumptions.
If you had an educatuion, show me a computor that makes itself and writes it's own software.

There are 17 trillion chemical reactions that take place in the human eye every second in order for it to function correctly. If that number is off ever so slightly the human eye cannot function. There are so many complex parts to the human eye that are necessary for operation that if you take one away then it will not function correctly. So the question is how could the human eye have been used for sight while it was in the process of evolving? The the eye could not have aided the organism hosting it while it was in the process of evolution. Charles Darwin said that evolution is dependent upon slight adaptations in the organism that are advantageous and through a series of slight adaptations we get a process that brings about changes in organisms. So WHY then would the human eye have evolved, if there was no advantage in the process of it becoming what it is today? This is the question of Irreducible Complexity. Its like a car engine. The car will not run properly until all of the components are installed and operational. If you take one part out, it won't function properly. So the human eye won't function without all of its complex components. How then could it have evolved through a process where it was not functioning and gaining advantages for its host organism?

Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...#ixzz12HcqxzRy

But by faith these complex eyes created themselves.

[coadie]

Certain bacteria use a microscopic whip or flagellum to propel themselves through their liquid environment. This organic engine does not run on the energy kept in a ready state in the ATP molecules inside the cell. Instead, it has its own particular source of energy: The bacterium uses the energy it receives from a flow of acid from the membrane. Some 240 separate proteins make up the bacterial whip. Scientists say that these proteins emit signals to turn the microscopic engine on and off and form joints that permit movement at the atomic level.

and by faith we believe these 240 proteins brewed themselves.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

That is correct. I read the link at wired. It clearly said the yeast was man made. DNA

It tells us that your claim was false. In the beginning there were no men with microscopes to assemble assorted and selected amino acids and DNA to create synthetic life.

By FAITH, evolutions claim life formed itself from non life from some primordial soup.

This thread is about politics in Nevada.

lol, this thread hasn't been about Angle for the past several posts.

I claimed that we were getting closer to figuring out how it was done. I never said that we created something from nothing.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by coadie

Now the big lie. Computor models. I wrote software and created programs using a scientific language fortran in the early 70's. All models are based on human assumptions.
If you had an educatuion, show me a computor that makes itself and writes it's own software.



Read more: http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...#ixzz12HcqxzRy

But by faith these complex eyes created themselves.

Again, I never said it was created out of nothing. You dreamed that up on your own.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Twisp

No, but we are getting close.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ynthetic-life/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/21....qa/index.html

Life, more than likely, arose from a combination of materials around it. Just because we have not pinpointed the exact method doesn't mean generations down the road won't. It just means that we are not scientifically advanced enough to know exactly yet.

We are advanced enough to know it didn't happen. Oxygen and Uv light kill these crude amino acid peptide chains and nucleotides.

It is obvious when people work from pure imagination and have no science.

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Twisp

Life, more than likely, arose from a combination of materials around it. Just because we have not pinpointed the exact method doesn't mean generations down the road won't. It just means that we are not scientifically advanced enough to know exactly yet.

Originally Posted by coadie

We are advanced enough to know it didn't happen. Oxygen and Uv light kill these crude amino acid peptide chains and nucleotides.

It is obvious when people work from pure imagination and have no science.

Hold on, you are saying that we know life did not rise from a combination of materials around it?

So now you are saying that life came from nothing? LOL, I have never seen someone switch positions so dramatically in a thread before. You are either very tired or very high.