reply to post by badmedia
Evolution is a program that's being ran by DNA.
Everything about it screams program and I think Darwin's version of evolution is holding back real progress. Our time and effort should be looking
for the code not trying to support Darwin and his pie in the sky theory.
I built a simple website using HTML and you can look at DNA as the software and our bodies as the hardware.
My website would run correctly most of the time but every once in awhile it would get a bug and I would have to go into the HTML code and fix the
problem. This is what they call mutations. These are just errors in the program.
Sometimes the error might actually look pretty good so I keep it and it becomes part of the website.
These things are random but they are a result of the program so they are still a product of design.
The reason Darwin has hurt the human race is because if we find the code we can cancel and close out diseases like Diabetes or Cancer in hours maybe
minutes. We are to busy trying to find ways to support Darwin's fantasy theory.
Right now if an error occurs during transcription we just get sick and we have to try to fix the error through medicine or surgery. This is because we
don't know the code. This is tied to Darwin and the materialist wanting a random process.
This is interesting:
As far back as 1994, pro-ID scientist and Discovery Institute fellow Forrest Mims had warned in a letter to Science against assuming that 'junk'
DNA was 'useless.'" Science wouldn't print Mims' letter, but soon thereafter, in 1998, leading ID theorist William Dembski repeated this
sentiment in First Things:
[Intelligent] design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the
term "junk DNA." Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected
evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a
lot of useless DNA. If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most
recent findings suggest that designating DNA as "junk" merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function. For instance, in a recent issue
of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how "non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal
growth and development." Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it.
(William Dembski, "Intelligent Science and Design," First Things, Vol. 86:21-27 (October 1998))
If we can concentrate on finding the code instead of supporting Darwin then we can save alot of lives and reach new heights for our species. Some are
so closed minded they don't want a program because that would destroy their beloved theory.