DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

All I have stated are facts and my beliefs

You have stated nothing but Ignorance and fallacies

[Everena]

Everena: Just specify what you think I was wrong about. No one has yet and it has been 16 days of me asking.

You're wrong about the 93%. You can claim 63% as confirmed religious at best. You're citing a Wikipedia page and I'm getting my data from Gallup. You remember Gallup don't you? A mere 3 years changes very little.

No I was not wrong about 93% believing in God or a Higher Power. 
73 cited scholarly sources from all over the world going to 2017 and 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
Your gallup poll is from 2015 and yes I remember Gallup who said he can prove God statistically. It is mathematically impossible to be an atheist.

---

Holy hell the stupid

I know, it's like faceplam and ohmigod had a child.

Talking about yourselves again??????

[Amarok]

Sometimes our plants suffer under my care. 

Yeah same here i'm not a very good gardener 

[Bucky Ball]

So ... she's back to saying truth is determined by polls, ..... again.

[Everena]

All I have stated are facts and my beliefs

You have stated nothing but Ignorance and fallacies

Fallacies, well ad populum but I was just stating facts, make of what you will. So what ignorance have I stated? Be specific. Tick tock.

[Amarok]

I remember Gallup who said he can prove God statistically. It is mathematically impossible to be an atheist.

Yay an opinion based on an Argument from credulity

---

Fallacies, well ad populum but I was just stating facts, make of what you will. So what ignorance have I stated? Be specific. Tick tock.

1. No you were using it as justification of a belief that's still a fallacy sorry so no i will not "make of it what  i will"

2. My response is the same as the last 5 times sorry you still don't get it. So i'll state it one final time i don't need to convince you you are wrong .

[Everena]

So ... she's back to saying truth is determined by polls,  .....  again.

No, they brought it up. And what would you like to say about what I posted on Nov 13th from quantum biology? (hint: you were all wrong and I was right and here are the last 2 paragraphs of that article proving you wrong)


Several research groups, including those led by Gröblacher and Farrow, are hoping to take these ideas even further. Gröblacher has designed an experiment that could place a tiny aquatic animal called a tardigrade in superposition—a proposition much more difficult than entangling bacteria with light owing to a tardigrade’s hundreds-fold–larger size. Farrow is looking at ways to improve on the bacterial experiment; in the next year he and his colleagues hope to entangle two bacteria together, rather than independently with light. “The long-term goals are foundational and fundamental,” Farrow says. “This is about understanding the nature of reality, and whether quantum effects have a utility in biological functions. At the root of things, everything is quantum,” he adds, with the big question being whether quantum effects play a role in how living things work.
It might be, for example, that “natural selection has come up with ways for living systems to naturally exploit quantum phenomena,” Marletto notes, such as the aforementioned example of bacteria photosynthesizing in the light-starved deep sea. But getting to the bottom of this requires starting small. The research has steadily been climbing toward macrolevel experiments, with one recent experiment successfully entangling millions of atoms. Proving the molecules that make up living things exhibit meaningful quantum effects—even if for trivial purposes—would be a key next step. By exploring this quantum–classical boundary, scientists could get closer to understanding what it would mean to be macroscopically quantum, if such an idea is true.




And here is the article again so you can again verify that I was right  

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...milestone/

[Amarok]

So ... she's back to saying truth is determined by polls,  .....  again.

And still getting it wrong

---

And she's repeating what was already debunked earlier

[Paleophyte]

Prove it. Single-celled organisms suffer and plants are more complex than that. We know that they respond to damage and that other plants respond to those, so they even communicate their suffering.


No, it's a whole group of single-celled organisms, some of which are parasitic. Remember I was mentioning single-celled organisms? Do try and keep up.

Everena: Again you are wrong and uneducated to the point of being annoying. Do try to get that. And amoebas are not plants fool.

I don't think that I'm going to be terribly insulted if somebody whose scientific literacy is so dismal that she forgot plants are alive thinks that I'm foolish.

Here it is step by step, try and follow along:

Amoebas are single-celled organisms (not plants, try not to get confused here).

Amoebas suffer. We can watch them writhe in agony.

Plants are more complex than amoebas. They're multicellular for a start. So they likely suffer more profoundly than anything as basic as an amoeba.

Plants emit chemicals when damaged. Other plants respond to these chemicals. They communicate their distress and react to other plants' suffering.

Human malevolence doesn't excuse Divine malevolence. Your deity is still on the hook for carnivores and natural disasters. Every gazelle that dies shrieking with a carnivore gnawing through its neck is another of God's horrors.

Everena: God is only "on the hook" as you say. with ridiculous, uneducated, illogical atheists who don't believe in God anyway.

You mean people who aren't emotionally invested in religion and willing to question it?

The smart 93% of the world

63% according to your dearly quoted Mr. Gallup.

does not have these issues with understanding that this earth is our challenge, not God's challenge.

You admit it then? That God made this world with suffering?


And you spelled it wrong.

[Everena]

I remember Gallup who said he can prove God statistically. It is mathematically impossible to be an atheist.

Yay an opinion based on an Argument from credulity

No, an opinion based on what the most famous statistician who ever lived said. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/george_gallup_113367

And based on the fact that it is mathematically impossible for even one protein to have formed by chance, as proven here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA


Fallacies, well ad populum but I was just stating facts, make of what you will. So what ignorance have I stated? Be specific. Tick tock.

1. No you were using it as justification of a belief that's still a fallacy sorry so no i will not "make of it what  i will"

2. My response is the same as the last 5 times sorry you still don't get it. So i'll state it one final time i don't need to convince  you you are wrong .

I am not wrong, you are. And I am glad you are admitting that you were just making up lies about me.