Poirot

'Christianity doesn't seem to have impacted your ethics in a positive sense.'

and your moral basis for such judgements?

Poirot

There is no link between Christianity and ethics, so poor runner is adrift in a big ocean of 'faith' and that's enough for him, in his balsa raft of hope.

runner,

My "moral basis" lies in the question of whether you consider it ethical practice to consistently smear your opponents by ascribing to them base values and characteristics.

TBC, you might have a point because here you were accused of envy and hatred:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3822&page=0#93970

And here you accused me of hatred because I lumped "politicians" together in my criticism. (scroll down - I appear to have given you a hefty serve in response)
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4848&page=0#129093

I'm sure if I could be bothered trawling through your posts, there'd be many more instances. It's not the sort of ethical practice I would expect from someone who bangs on about values like you do.
I think you'd find that if you weren't quite so antagonistic in your style and keen to plant an insulting epithet on people that they would be more inclined to give you a fairer hearing.

> "McReal,
> "If you can't see that biology points to design you are either blind or deceitful."
> Posted by runner, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:21:54 PM <<

Lets not put too fine a point on things, runner. Geometrically, a point has no dimension. But, of course, geometry is, to us, a moot point.

To get to the point, Biology is developed, individually or collectively, from codes at the point of enaction by
1. DNA transcription to complementary RNA which in turn makes a protein sequence by translation; or
2. by DNA replication.

A key point is that Transmission of genetic information in genes, and their allele units, is achieved via complementary base pairing. The bases are surprisingly basic units of *Organic Chemistry*, chained together. They are self-replicating via DNA.

All the functions of DNA depend on interactions with proteins. These protein interactions can be *non-specific* (ie. without design), or the protein can bind specifically to a single DNA sequence. Enzymes can also bind to DNA and of these, the polymerases that copy the DNA base sequence in transcription and DNA replication are particularly important.

We are all made up of billions of cells, each an independent factory of chromosomal DNA, ribosomes, endoplastmic reticulum, and mitochondria. Some of these intracellular organelles were bacteria that became symbiotic and essential to evolution of organisms.

Nothing deceitful in really knowing how things really work, runner. Nothing blind in that.

That's what we want our schools to do: avoid deceit, and open children's eyes and minds.

It would be apporpriate for you to address the other questions ...

Posted by Poirot, Friday, 9 March 2012 5:42:36 PM

> "Why would McReal's failure to perceive design in biology be construed as deceitful?"
> "could it be that once more you are indulging in your usual habit of denigrating those that dissent from your views?"

This isn't about views, it is about truth, runner.
Known, Reasoned, pointed truth.

McReal

and the first cell evolved from?

Oh, runner. I’ve already answered that fallacious, God-of-the-Gaps question so many times with the so far plausible explanation. But like with every other one of your repetitively debunked arguments, you just keep coming back with the same old responses as if nothing had been said.

You fundies are unbelievable.