Unreviewed Annotation 1 Contributor ?

What is this?

The Genius annotation is the work of the Genius Editorial project. Our editors and contributors collaborate to create the most interesting and informative explanation of any line of text. It’s also a work in progress, so leave a suggestion if this or any annotation is missing something.

To learn more about participating in the Genius Editorial project, check out the contributor guidelines.

Loading...

Some consider this a contradiction, considering the Old Testament recounts violence being used on many occasions by Yaweh.

However, the Bible does make violence seem like a last resort option (considering pharaoh didn’t really give Moses and Aaron a choice), and also hints towards the idea of violence being more than just a physical force, but also an evil intention.

Some scholars would also bring up the fact that Yahweh is free of moral accountability, and views things from an eternal perspective – He makes choices based upon the greater good.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

‘IQ Whoring’ AKA cheating the system. This is where users are desperate to surpass everyone else’s IQ count on the site, and attempt to do so through rapidly accepting any annotation they encounter without properly reviewing them. BUT, with the new penalty system this can no longer happen. Mwahahahaha.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

The NCSE, In particular Eugenie Scott, commonly use cheap debating tactics like ‘I.D is not science, and I.D is a religious argument’ in an attempt to avoid any genuine conversation with an I.D advocate.

Is Intelligent Design creationism? (from the official website)

No.

The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

Vestigial DNA, otherwise known as ‘Junk’ DNA is a term scientists used to describe the DNA in the human genome that ‘serves no apparent function’, because secular biologists were under the assumption that it had lost function over the course of evolution.

However, in September 2012, the ENCODE project run by the US National Human Genome Research Institute, published the results for the second phase of their experiment which intends to find ‘all functional elements in the human genome’. Surprisingly the results showed that biochemical functions were able to be assigned to 80% of the genome.

ENCODE, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements, is a project funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute to identify all regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification in the human genome sequence. Thanks to the identification of these functional elements, 80% of the components of the human genome now have at least one biochemical function associated with them. This expansive resource of functional annotations is already providing new insights into the organization and regulation of our genes and genome.

Source: http://www.nature.com/encode/

Many scientists previously boasted Junk DNA (under the presupposition that it WAS Junk) as one of the leading evidences for the evolutionary process.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

James Tour, PhD, synthetic chemist specialising in nanotechnology, revealed at Georgia Tech 2012, that he does not understand macro-evolution.

In November 2006, James was ranked #9 most cited out of 6,438 chemists (all fields). The full list is available here.

If anybody should be able to understand evolution it is me. Because I make molecules for a living. And I don’t just buy a kit and mix this and mix this and get that. I mean ab initio I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules… I don’t understand evolution and I’ll confess that to you…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZrxTH-UUdI

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.