DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

Only one I take issue with is Richard Dawkins because he is clearly serving the same agenda.  I am not a Dr. Dawkins fan.

1. So you admit you smeared Dawkins 

2. Nope he serves no agenda his opposition to intelligent design is totally legit 

3. I don't like dawkins either but i don't smear him .

[Edwardo Piet]

Dawkins is freaking awesome.

[Amarok]

No, but there is plenty of good information you can get at the GodandScience site I posted eariler or any of my earlier video posts

You posted no evidence only propaganda

---

Teaching ID, without any theological topics attached, is not religion in the classroom.  I am all for separation of church and state

ID is an attempt to sneak religion back into schools

---

I copied the ID definition on purpose.  Not to plagiarize but to show I was stating a very similar definition on my own.

You didn't cite your source it's still plagiarism. And getting definition of ID from an ID site is as biased as you can get .

---

Dr. Meyer earned his PhD from Cambridge.  He is a very intelligent man if you read his materials and listen to him speak and debate.  He knows his science, that's for sure.  Dr. Behe is highly intelligent in this way as well

A shyster with cedentals is still a shyster

[CDF47]

No, but there is plenty of good information you can get at the GodandScience site I posted eariler or any of my earlier video posts.

No, there isn;t...and that;s why you've completely failed here, both as a communicator of some bit of science -and- as an evangelist.

I don't think so.

---

Only one I take issue with is Richard Dawkins because he is clearly serving the same agenda.  I am not a Dr. Dawkins fan.

1. So you admit you smeared Dawkins 

2. Nope he serves no agenda his opposition to intelligent design is totally legit 

3. I don't like dawkins either but i don't smear him .

Not smeared him but talked bad about him.  I think he serves an agenda.

[Silver]

I don't think so.

Due to the fact that you don't have an objective perspective. Everything to a religious person is purely subjective, which leads to unrealistic claims.

[The Grand Nudger]

No, there isn;t...and that;s why you've completely failed here, both as a communicator of some bit of science -and- as an evangelist.

I don't think so.

Your success at either task is determined by your audience.  You do realize that, right?  Like, for example, because I;m not a prideful nitwit, I can accept that I have failed you.  Both in communicating the reality of biology to you, and bringing you closer to god.

You;re still an obstinent psuedo-science sucker who prays at the altar of behe.

This why I ask you if theres anything else I can clear up, rather than stomp my feet and insist that I already have cleared everything up for you. That would be an absurd and ridiculous claim, trivially easy to demonstrate as false....given your present state...as is the claim that you have succeeded, given mine.

You are a failure at what you came here to do. You will not get better at what you came to do..unless you can accept your failures and learn from them.

I;ve learned, for example..that it;s pointless to appeal to magic book, christian responsibility, or the gravity and immediacy of the need for salvation.... with you.

[CDF47]

No, but there is plenty of good information you can get at the GodandScience site I posted eariler or any of my earlier video posts

You posted no evidence only propaganda

---

Teaching ID, without any theological topics attached, is not religion in the classroom.  I am all for separation of church and state

ID is an attempt to sneak religion back into schools

---

I copied the ID definition on purpose.  Not to plagiarize but to show I was stating a very similar definition on my own.

You didn't cite your source it's still plagiarism. And getting definition of ID from an ID site is as biased as you can get .

---

Dr. Meyer earned his PhD from Cambridge.  He is a very intelligent man if you read his materials and listen to him speak and debate.  He knows his science, that's for sure.  Dr. Behe is highly intelligent in this way as well

A shyster with cedentals is still a shyster

I provided both proof and evidence.  

ID is science which belongs in the schools.

He is no shyster.  You just try to smear his good name.

---

I don't think so.

Due to the fact that you don't have an objective perspective.  Everything to a religious person is purely subjective, which leads to unrealistic claims.

I have an objective perspective about DNA proving design of living systems.

[Silver]

I have an objective perspective about DNA proving design of living systems.

See, you just had to subjectively sneak that word "design" into there.

[CDF47]

I don't think so.

Your success at either task is determined by your audience.  You do realize that, right?  Like, for example, because I;m not a prideful nitwit, I can accept that I have failed you.  Both in communicating the reality of biology to you, and bringing you closer to god.

You;re still an obstinate psuedo-scientist who prays at the altar of behe.

This why I ask you if theres anything else I can clear up, rather than stomp my feet and insist that I already have cleared everything up for you.  That would be an absurd and ridiculous claim, trivially easy to demonstrate as false....given your present state...as is the claim that you have succeeded, given mine.

Obstinate, yes.  Psuedo-science no.  Worship of Dr. Behe, no.

---

I have an objective perspective about DNA proving design of living systems.

See, you just had to subjectively sneak that word "design" into there.

Design or created; either one is objective in this case.  There is no other way the code of life could have written itself, other than by a Designer or a Creator.  It is far far way too sophisticated.

[The Grand Nudger]

See, I;ve failed you.