DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[GrandizerII]

It's really funny how we live in a world where nothing expected only under creationism has been observed, and everything that we have observed regarding creationism vs evolution has been expected under evolution.

[Ravenshire]

I am just not convinced that one species turns into an entirely different species. And you know what? Neither are a lot of people whether they choose to admit it to you or not.

(my bold)

I'm assuming you're objection is that they don't change species in a single generation. Of course, that not what evolution claims anyway. You seem to be searching for proof via crockoduck. Funniest part is that your objection here has more than adequately been answered by evolutionary biologists. Maybe you should do some reading. I'd recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins. Love him or hate him as a debater of religion, the man knows his shit in evolutionary biology.

[Amarok]

I am just not convinced that one species turns into an entirely different species.

Science is not here to convince you

[Everena]

Everena: It did not magically pop into existence with all that we have here, itself. "Things" without intelligence do not do that. It never has happened, never will happen.

No one is telling you that "it" did..

Everena: If you are an atheist, then you are indeed claiming it did.

.so...for the umpteenth time, this is a pointless objection.  Go find someone who thinks that, and argue that with them?  Why are you wasting your time litigating this with us?

 
Everena: There are only two options. Either you think higher intelligence created this universe (which means you believe in God) or you think nothing created this universe and it just magically created itself.

Meanwhile, the comment that you responded to..with the above..had nothing to do with the above, and remains true regardless of whether "it" all magically popped into existence.  
The entire universe..and everything in it, is only evidence of the universe and everything in it. 
If you would like to add an entity to that list, you will need evidence for that entity, not evidence for the universe.  

Everena: False. He requested evidence of God.

More pointless lies and still pointless.  You made the claim that science does not know how or why we are conscious.  That isn;t entirely true..and if it were..it would still only be an argument from ignorance.  

Everena: It is true and I provided a link from neuroscience proving it was true.
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-theory-9059/


Everena: Science does not attempt to answer any of the whys of our existence. That is left to philosophy.Anyone who stated otherwise is WRONG. Ask any real scientist. Science attempts to discover and understand how things in our already existing and operating universe work and that is all.

There's no need...we already have citations from real scientists™ in the thread..which you could address at any point, if you so chose.  You have decided, instead, to memory hole that.  

Everena:If they are real scientists, then they will tell you the exact same thing.



Everena: Why? Because the fact that we have food for the estimated 7.8 million different species of conscious life on this planet completely proves you are wrong?

More because it was almost unbelievably ignorant.  If I hadn't heard dumber things on these boards for years I would never have believed that a person could say such a thing and be doing anything -other- than fucking around as a POE.  

Everena: And by that you mean that you hate it because it proves you wrong. And you are welcome.

You're really struggling to get anything right today, huh?  I know that our having food isn't a matter of chance or luck - but since I'm an atheist, and gods have nothing to do with our food...you shit the bed pretty hard here.  

Everena: I don't think you understand how this works. If you're an atheist, then you think it is all just here by chance or luck. If you believe in God, then you are awhere that created this planet with food on it for us.

Everena: George Gallup, the most famous statistician who ever lived, said God can be proven statistically see quote https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/george_gallup_113367

Lets see the math.  You're going to have to show your work.  

Everena:
It is hard math that requires a scientific calculator. There are several videos on youtube explaining how it is mathematically impossible that even a protein would ever form by itself without intelligence

Yes, ev, exactly..we agree?  Nothingness doesn't give a shit about us.  And?  

Everena: Yes and so nothingness would not give us a sex drive and a will to live, because how could nothing care if our species survived or continued on? (Hint: It wouldn't and so there is a God who did care)

[Gwaithmir]

Yes, it is. All you have done here is to demonstrate your ignorance of a valid genetic study and, in all probability, genetics in general. Denial on your part does not constitute a counterargument.

Denial of what? It is not proof on one species turning into an entirely different species. There is no observable evidence of it. You believe it on faith.

Wrong! I've given you the scientific study and citation. It  is irrefutable proof of speciation. You are ignorant and in denial. Grow up!

[Everena]

I am just not convinced that one species turns into an entirely different species. And you know what? Neither are a lot of people whether they choose to admit it to you or not.

(my bold)

I'm assuming you're objection is that they don't change species in a single generation. Of course, that not what  evolution claims anyway. You seem to be searching for proof via crockoduck. Funniest part is that your objection here has more than adequately been answered by evolutionary biologists. Maybe you should do some reading. I'd recommend "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Dawkins. Love him or hate him as a debater of religion, the man knows his shit in evolutionary biology.

You assume wrong. Plant and germ evidence are not convincing to me, and what they call speciation could just be adaption. I'm still not saying they are wrong. I am just saying that I am not convinced. And I really don't want to talk about Evol anymore, because it's just getting too repetetive now. See: lots of prior posts about this.

[The Grand Nudger]

Everena: It did not magically pop into existence with all that we have here, itself. "Things" without intelligence do not do that. It never has happened, never will happen.

That's nice, and since no one is telling you that "it" did magically pop into existence...take that garbage elsewhere?  How can this be made more clear to you?  

Everena: If you are an atheist, then you are indeed claiming it did.

As expected, you have no idea what atheism is.

 

Everena: There are only two options. Either you think higher intelligence created this universe (which means you believe in God) or you think nothing created this universe and it just magically created itself.

As has already been explained to you, this is a false dichotomy.  I'll take the third door, thx, and go fuck yourself..properly..lol.

Everena: False. He requested evidence of God.

"Derp derp..derp derp derp derp..derp."

Everena: It is true and I provided a link from neuroscience proving it was true.
https://neurosciencenews.com/consciousness-theory-9059/

Pointless lies will remain pointless no matter how many times they're reasserted.

Everena: Science does not attempt to answer any of the whys of our existence. That is left to philosophy.Anyone who stated otherwise is WRONG. Ask any real scientist. Science attempts to discover and understand how things in our already existing and operating universe work and that is all.

See above.

Everena:If they are real scientists, then they will tell you the exact same thing.

See above.

Everena: Why? Because the fact that we have food for the estimated 7.8 million different species of conscious life on this planet completely proves you are wrong?

If you worship the meat fairy that made your food..you worship a bunch of human beings.  Theres really nothing else to say on this count.

Everena: And by that you mean that you hate it because it proves you wrong. And you are welcome.

See above.

Everena: I don't think you understand how this works. If you're an atheist, then you think it is all just here by chance or luck. If you believe in God, then you are awhere that created this planet with food on it for us.

Nothing to do with atheism.  

Everena:
It is hard math that requires a scientific calculator. There are several videos on youtube explaining how it is mathematically impossible that even a protein would ever form by itself without intelligence

A math free argument from probability.  Legit. 

Everena: Yes and so nothingness would not give us a sex drive and a will to live, because how could nothing care if our species survived or continued on? (Hint: It wouldn't and so there is a God who did care)

Nothingness -didn't- give us a sex drive or a will to live.  Jesus christ you're thick.

[Everena]

Explain how one species turning into an entirely different species is helping find cures for diseases? Genetics is a relatively new field, and they are discovering new things all the time. They were using genetics long before 2013 and yet they discovered an entirely new code with a second language that controls our genes, written on top of the other code.  https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/...etic-code/

Thanks sweetie ... for yet again demonstrating you actually know nothing about the field and how it works.

Did the discovery of how genes are expressed, (and epigenetics) upend the field of genetics ? Nope. You have FAILED to provide any evidence for your ASSertion that one discovery could change the entire field. Christ you are an ignorant fool.
BTW, genetics is not a new field. I know they didn't tell you that in your Creationist comic books, but it's a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_genetics

 Everena: Oh boy: I said explain how one species turning into an entirely different species is helping find a cure for diseases? And yes, bright one, genetics is a newer field of science compared to the other fields of science. Why don't you get an education? You have no idea what you're even talking about most of the time.

[CDF47]

When something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously) one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed), rather than being the result of natural processes. The following are examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified. Details of living things can be similarly characterized, especially the "patterns" of molecular sequences in functional biological molecules such as DNA.

That's not a definition so much as it is an assertion of a paradigm case.  A variant of Ed Meese's comment about pornography that he "knows it" when he sees it.  In general it tells us nothing about what specification is, and as it is in effect trying to illuminate the general by reference to the specific, it can never in itself provide a working definition of what it means for information to be specified.  Citing paradigm cases offers us no clue as to how we should reason about non-paradigm cases on the basis of paradigm cases.  In particular, DNA is so unlike a Shakespearean sonnet that such a statement is as close to useless as you can possibly be.  And in particular, you don't actually have evidence that Shakespearean sonnets themselves are specified as it is possible that the sonnets were produced by an entirely random procedure.  Which of course was Dembski's first line of attack wherein he attempted to equate improbability with design.  Given the unfitness of probability as a criterion for design, he came up with the notion of specificity which he has never clearly defined, nor produced an actual application of its definition.  That you sit here with the chutzpah to suggest that you can show the meaning of specification in sufficient detail and rigor that it could be applied blindly without foreknowledge of the conclusion is nothing more than the sheerest folly of an incompetent and ignorant man.

The heart of the question is "characterized" in what way?  You haven't given us a specific definition of the specific way in which you are claiming sonnets and DNA are characterized.  That would require giving the characteristics which imply design, and those which do not.  You have not done so.

They are like a sonnet in that specific instructions are found in DNA to encode for proteins.  The information is functional.

[The Grand Nudger]

So what, you've already informed us that information doesn't require a designer.