DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

No, I love Penrose. He has spent a big part of his career proving atheists wrong about artificial intelligence and consciousness. 

Penrose an avowed atheist proved himself wrong ......

---

. He believes in eternal life and has worked hard to prove we have a soul.

But he rejects a god so he's still an atheist. No where in the definition of atheist is their a reject of souls or an eternal life. All one can say is Penrose isn't a materialist but plenty of Atheists aren't materialists one does not follow from the other .

[Everena]

Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

You should be taking your own hints because God exists.

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: 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 understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

---

Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

You should be taking your own hints because God exists.

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: 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 understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

---

Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

You should be taking your own hints because God exists.

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: 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 understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

---

Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

You should be taking your own hints because God exists.

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: 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 understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

I have no idea how or why that posted twice like that. What the heck?

---

Strawman argument. Answer the actual question or admit defeat. And your comment about what? Fungi eating a dead carcass? What does that have to do with anything?

---

Wow snookums. 
You seem a bit obsessed with the binary options. 
Are you as simple-minded as your questions make you appear ? You seem to *need" to be on top. 

Explain how the complexity of DNA came to be without an intelligent driving force. Tick tock.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

A chemist whose field is in metals is not an expert in chemistry where in the calling is biology.

Here's a question, (Which will most probably be ignored and/or 'Questioned over').

You have an Astrophysicist and a Nuclear physicist.

Which one would you ask their advice on building an atomic reactor?

Also, and I feel this has definately been explained before, science does not work on the 'Power' of individuals but on the momentum of the concensus across the specrum accrued by the majority of all within the field.

Who, by the way, also rely on repeatable experiments and rigorous, repeated tests of said ideas in said feild.

[Amarok]

Not to mention he's been refuted . Yet more lies by the ID community .

https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-...stand.html

Gotta love it when idiots latch on to some famous person to push their agenda. As if science is about celebrities

[Gwaithmir]

@Everena:

Indeed, Prof. James M. Tour was a signator to Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," but has he ever had a scientific paper critical of modern evolutionary theory published in NATURE or any other legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal?

He is, by the way, a synthetic organic chemist whose scientific field is in nanotechnology, not modern evolutionary theory.

[Amarok]

@Everena:

Indeed, Prof. James M. Tour was a signator to Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," but has he ever had a scientific paper critical of modern evolutionary theory published in NATURE or any other legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal?

He is, by the way, a synthetic organic chemist whose scientific field is in nanotechnology, not modern evolutionary theory.

A petition that got swamped by the far better Steve project .

[Paleophyte]

I never said they were conscious. You said they weren't alive! The fact that you could ever consider that an option beggars the imagination.

No, I sure didn't. You are nothing but a total fraud and a liar. I said they are not alive in the same sense that we and the animals are.

Let's check with reality, shall we? 

Everena: Plants are not conscious life or living creatures, and if you feel so bad about eating the food this earth provides for you, then by all means stop eating it because you think it is so evil to do it. Do you think it hurts an orange tree or an apple tree when their fruit falls to the ground and we it? Does it hurt a bush when we eat berries before they fall to the ground? Who in the f-ck do you think you're kidding?

Emphasis mine. See where you said plants aren't living creatures? If you don't believe me then you can click on that little green arrow next to "Everena Wrote:" and be instantly teleported back to the original incriminating text.

I will graciously accept your apology for calling me a liar and a fraud any time you're ready.

I'm sure you believe that. I'm equally sure you're wrong. You had to be told that plants were alive and that mushrooms aren't plants. So did I mind you, but I was 5 years old at the time.

Liar. You are lying and mis-stating what I said about plants being alive, 

Nope, and here's what you said about fungi:

Fungi are plants

Looks like you pretty clearly said "Fungi are plants."

Make that two apologies.

and fungi are similiar enough to plants to be classified as plants, no matter what some idiot like you thinks and no matter what separate made up kingdom they may belong to according to biology.

No, they really aren't. Fungi are actually more closely related to animals than they are to plants. About the only thing that fungi and plants have in common is a lack of locomotion. Now about that scientific literacy of yours.

And the whole point was that they are not conscious life!

That isn't what you said. And I never said that they were.

I was not even having the discussion with you.

Wrong is wrong no matter who you're talking to, and are you ever wrong!

You are just pissed off because I have proven you wrong about every single thing we have discussed.

Yeah, right. Plant's aren't living creatures, fungi are plants, and I'm the one who's lying. You're a scientific illiterate who can't keep her story straight and your idea of "proof" is "I said you're wrong you illogical lying atheist fraud!!!" You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag if it caught fire.

How are you on parasitism? Gnawing on your food while it lives is about as horrific as it gets. More evidence for a malevolent god.

Stop eating then! You are ungrateful and intentionally illogical about everything.

How is not eating supposed to help with parasites? Aside from being dead? Why would I be grateful for something as horrific as parasites? Who's illogical?

[Amarok]

Need i point out he himself admits he's not qualified 

Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.

Also he rejects ID

to those who “are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001” he responded “I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there

I also point out the majority of his supposed discussions with other scientists is simply hearsay and the papers he cites are just his lack of understanding of the varied driving of mechanism of Macro evolution.

[Paleophyte]

Which proves Yahweh! 

Checkmate, atheists!

Glory!

Yes Check Mate atheists. What a great point. 

The FacePalm is too strong in this one to parody.

[Amarok]

No, I sure didn't. You are nothing but a total fraud and a liar. I said they are not alive in the same sense that we and the animals are.

Let's check with reality, shall we? 

Everena: Plants are not conscious life or living creatures, and if you feel so bad about eating the food this earth provides for you, then by all means stop eating it because you think it is so evil to do it. Do you think it hurts an orange tree or an apple tree when their fruit falls to the ground and we it? Does it hurt a bush when we eat berries before they fall to the ground? Who in the f-ck do you think you're kidding?

Emphasis mine. See where you said plants aren't living creatures? If you don't believe me then you can click on that little green arrow next to "Everena Wrote:" and be instantly teleported back to the original incriminating text.

I will graciously accept your apology for calling me a liar and a fraud any time you're ready.

Liar. You are lying and mis-stating what I said about plants being alive, 

Nope, and here's what you said about fungi:

Fungi are plants

Looks like you pretty clearly said "Fungi are plants."

Make that two apologies.

and fungi are similiar enough to plants to be classified as plants, no matter what some idiot like you thinks and no matter what separate made up kingdom they may belong to according to biology.

No, they really aren't. Fungi are actually more closely related to animals than they are to plants. About the only thing that fungi and plants have in common is a lack of locomotion. Now about that scientific literacy of yours.

And the whole point was that they are not conscious life!

That isn't what you said. And I never said that they were.

I was not even having the discussion with you.

Wrong is wrong no matter who you're talking to, and are you ever wrong!

You are just pissed off because I have proven you wrong about every single thing we have discussed.

Yeah, right. Plant's aren't living creatures, fungi are plants, and I'm the one who's lying. You're a scientific illiterate who can't keep her story straight and your idea of "proof" is "I said you're wrong you illogical lying atheist fraud!!!" You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag if it caught fire.

Stop eating then! You are ungrateful and intentionally illogical about everything.

How is not eating supposed to help with parasites? Aside from being dead? Why would I be grateful for something as horrific as parasites? Who's illogical?

To be fair creatures a pretty broad word. But your right about the her flippant idea that pointing out if their were a god he's straight up evil by chiding you that you shouldn't eat is just silly .