DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Ravenshire]

You are indeed entitled to your own opinion. However, you are not entitled to your own facts, which is what you typically present your opinions as. Have fun ignoring any and all who "get angry" at that. You'll soon be "conversing" in a vacuum more pure than that which lies between your ears.

I'm really not stating anything as fact other than that I know God exists and we do have eternal life. And I would not say that if I even had any doubt left what so ever. Aside from that, I have stated the logic that is used by people to determine there really is a God, since we can't see God. And then I have stated my own personal beliefs about karma and reincarnation and why I think so. 

As far as evol goes, it is really just my opinion. You can be convinced by it all you like. You shouldn't care that me and billions of other people aren't as convinced as you are.

You and billions? Really? Wow, but you are full of yourself. A veritable legend in your own mind. You have fun with that.

[Everena]

Exactly, she felt this way since she was 3, and never understood the need to feel differently so she remains 3.


Btw, be careful with slighting California.   I live here.

Me too. 

Just because I live in a woo woo state, does not mean I am woo woo. The concept of Karma exists in every religion!

[The Grand Nudger]

Which isn't exactly a certification of any of them....lol.

[Bucky Ball]

Just because I live in a woo woo state, does not mean I am woo woo. The concept of Karma exists in every religion!

"Karma is a belief from ancient Indian religions in which an unseen system keeps a running total of one’s deeds throughout multiple lifetimes, to determine one’s status in fortune, caste and wisdom through each stage of reincarnation. Since reincarnation is not a true concept, with humans having only have one life to live, and the one who records all deeds and informs us of them and creates their outcomes is our Creator, there is no need to posit a theory of karma or cite it in one’s speech."

You are all about woo-woo. Karma does not exist in every religion. 
Judaism
Christianity
Zoroastrianism
Islam

None of these have "karma". In them all, one can be forgiven of one's sins. 
Now about you thinking about getting an education ... it appears to be an urgent matter.

[Everena]

The field of Evolutionary Biology is only like 290 people, with most of them working under someone else. It's like a small company and none of them are trying to disprove evolution. They are all trying to make strides in genetics or newer theores. Evolution is considered settled science. They decided they were right and I'm still not saying that they are wrong. I'm saying only that there is one part of their proven theory that is not proven. One species turning into an entirely different species has only flimsy evidence and huge amounts of conjecture and speculation, I am not convinced. Maybe one day they will convince me. Don't let my personal skepticism bother you. I also think all religions are man made. I am a skeptic of everything pretty much. But I do know God exists beyond and all doubt and someday you will too.

Except you dishonest troll, we were talking about GENETICS, now weren't were. 
The truth of a subject is in NO way dependent on the number in the field ... how many were doing "relativity" ? LMAO
It's hardly a small field. Post a reference NOW for how you got your 290 number. 

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. 

What a stupid idiot.

Everena: Genetics is not one species turning into an entirely different species. It's genetics. And I guessed at the number. There are actually 324 according to this article and some of those are probably dead now.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:E...biologists

[The Grand Nudger]

Everena: Genetics is not one species turning into an entirely different species. It's genetics.

Genetics is the explanation of how and why one species "turns into" another...which has been observed.  Try again.

[Bucky Ball]

[quote pid='1851130' dateline='1542423563']
Everena: Genetics is not one species turning into an entirely different species. It's genetics. And I guessed at the number. There are actually 324 according to this article and some of those are probably dead now.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:E...biologists
[/quote]

Time for your pills dear. Tell the nurse you're ready for your bedtime story.

[Everena]

Sure can: They could just as easily be examples of adaption. The species is only changing in minor ways, not turning into an entirely different species.

What in your words is the difference between an adaptation and turning into an entirely different species?  I guess the crux at the heart of the question is what do you believe determines what a species is such that we can determine whether an organism that has changed is still within the same species, and thus is merely adapting, as opposed to a species that has changed enough to make it no longer a part of the original species.  It's said that every species is a transitional organism, and that every organism is a transitional organism, as all organisms are different from their parents, and all organisms are thus in some respects different from their parent species.  I'll help the debate along by suggesting that a mutation in the germ line is a necessary condition of a mutation or other event giving rise to a new species.  Beyond that, things get murky.  What do you consider the minimum change necessary for an organism to display, relative to any of its ancestors, that would be required for an organism to be part of a new species?

(Note that this becomes entangled with common descent.  An organism need not be sufficiently different from its parent, but rather from any prior ancestor, because if speciation does not occur, then all ancestors of the organism are necessarily of the same species and can serve as the referent for change.  For example, in ring species, immediate descendants of mating couples may indeed be fertile with their parents and others like them.  However, if interfertility is the standard, and if they are not interfertile with any given organisms in the ring, and all organisms in the ring are conceded to be related, then speciation by definition has occurred.)

Everena: What makes it no longer part of that species is that it cannot mate with the same species it was born to. Now if an animal were ever born anywhere on planet earth that could not mate with the species it was born to, I would also then be convinced. Evolution is an ongoing process, so we should be seeing this happen is some species on earth if it's really true. But not so far..... And it was my understanding that other scientists had proven there was no ring series https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com...g-species/

[Bucky Ball]

speciation ... happening right now. 
https://www.businessinsider.com/examples...now-2015-2

That woo woman, ... sucks to be her.

[The Grand Nudger]

Everena: What makes it no longer part of that species is that it cannot mate with the same species it was born to. Now if an animal were ever born anywhere on planet earth that could not mate with the species it was born to, I would also then be convinced. Evolution is an ongoing process, so we should be seeing this happen is some species on earth if it's really true. But not so far.....

That's the reproductive isolation explanation of speciation...which has been observed.