DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

Sure there would be.  I am up against group think.

Nor you are not, you are promoting group think. Why else would you be mindlessly promoting christianity? It is because you have surrendered your own mind to the christian way. 

Besides, jesus was a socialist. Why do you hate jesus?

---

It wasn't harsh slavery He supported.  Below is information on Biblical slavery:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-quest...t-slavery/

Answersingenesis? Hahahahahahahaha. More group think BS.

Step up to the plate. Is it moral to own others or not? Why can you not own your ideas?

Not to mention  almost all of socialism founders Henri de Saint-Simon,Charles Fourier,Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,and
Louis Blanc were all staunch Christians.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I knew it.  You are a socialist.  I cannot stand socialism.  I will hold on to my constitutional rights with a death grip.

Have you ever lived in a socialist country? No. So why hate it if you don't actually know what it is? Hating socialism without even knowing what it is shows us that you are parroting your indoctrination.

I live in the UK which has free health care with the NHS which both rich and poor love. We're going through a prolonged right wing phase at the moment, but are still socialist by American standards.

I've lived in Germany which is both a socialist country even by UK standards and also more conservative. The standard of living is also significantly higher. It's also one of the most prosperous economies in the world, alongside other socialist countries.

If you were a critical thinker you would be asking yourself who is conditioning you to hate socialism and why. But you're not so you will never understand that it's the rich that do not need socialism who want you to hate it so they can make themselves richer. But enjoy living in country with some of the worst inequality in the world that many do not even consider a first world country any more.

---

They can try all they want and do all that BS but we still must cling to the Constitution, as jacked up as this nation is right now.

You complained about me going off-topic by talking about self organisation of snow flakes and here you are talking about socialism and constitutions.

Another one to add to the list:

• Spammer
  
• Misogynist
  
• Liar
  
• Hypocrite
  

---

So now you think you could right a document better than the US Constitution.  I highly doubt that.  Plus, it would be a socialist document which makes me sick to think of.

The Scots had a great influence on the American constitution and Scotland is far more socialist than the UK which is a socialist country by US standards. (I live in Scotland by the way because the standard of living is better up here)

http://caledonianmercury.com/2011/02/10/...nt/0013857

[SaStrike]

Ok USA is definitely a first world country, for some of its citizens.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Ok USA is definitely a first world country, for some of its citizens.

Exactly (my italics), so maybe it's better to judge a country by how it treats its lowliest members. Otherwise a few rich people living in a third world country would make it a first world country. At what point do you draw the line between how many rich people are living a first world life style compared to the rest of the population? If the country is truly advanced and prosperous, it should benefit everyone living there.

[SaStrike]

Ok USA is definitely a first world country, for some of its citizens.

Exactly (my italics), so maybe it's better to judge a country by how it treats its lowliest members. Otherwise a few rich people living in a third world country would make it a first world country. At what point do you draw the line between how many rich people are living a first world life style compared to the rest of the population? If the country is truly advanced and prosperous, it should benefit everyone living there.

I'm sure even the most advanced country in the world has homeless people. But you have a point, it needs to be majority, not minority, with first world living conditions.

[pocaracas]

Too bad you are degrading 75 percent of America which identify as Christian including many scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.

I think a distinction is required here.

When you say some 75% of Americans identify as Christian, it doesn't mean that those 75% believe as you do that all life forms were created as they pretty much are nowadays.
Most Christians accept Genesis as allegorical. Yes, God created everything... but everything was created in such a way as to then spark the generation of Galaxies, Stars, Solar Systems, Planets, Earth, Water, proto-life, Bacterial Life, multicellular life, plants, animals, humans.
Most Christians accept that God's act of creation was perfect from the start.
They accept that Adam & Eve are also allegorical, representing mankind's thirst for knowledge which led them to abandon god.
"The fall", as you call it, is something that would have happened long before the Bible was written, but, in evolutionary terms and in geological terms, only a blink of an eye in the past.

You may recall one of my first posts to you mentioned that you were making your god be incompetent in it's inability to do things right in a single act of creation.
Also, what do you consider god to be?... Have you read anything about Aristotle and Aquinas?
Here, you can start with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics_(Aristotle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism

---

I am facing the group mind in here.  Atheists surrounded by other atheists with the hive mind.  It is really difficult to get through to such a group.

Have you ever seen what happens to an atheist in a religious forum?
How about an atheist at home with the religious family?

How about places of pilgrimage? Lourdes? Fátima? Hive mind seems like an inadequate concept, considering the huge number of people in there...

---

I understand socialism and as a form of government, it sucks.  Good thing I live in a constitutional republic, as jacked as it is right now.

Some like it.
I live in one such country and I would never trade it for whatever it is that you have in the States.
It's easy to claim that what you know well is the best, especially if you know next to nothing about the alternatives.

But it is easy for most other countries in the world to measure up to the States, given that they do tend to show us all how things work in there.
The public school system? Has its good parts, but is shown to all to be a popularity contest, a breeding ground for frustrated kids with access to guns. Yes, kids all over the world are cruel to one another, but being popular, or not popular was never even an issue. Funding of the school system is also a constant source of problems, but somehow it works. Here, the curricula are defined by the Education Ministry and the schools only need to follow that... there is no way that any non-scientific ideas can creep into the science curriculum. But there?... it seems to be always in the news - States' governing bodies mandating that creationism be taught as science?!
Health care is another hot topic. In the UK, everyone gets access to the NHS for free. In my country, we need to pay a small fee to see a doctor, but it's something like 5€, something everyone can afford, if they need it, but it's enough to discourage hypochondriacs and lonely people from clogging up the service. In the States, as far as I can tell, you get service if it's an emergency.... if not, you need insurance to cover it, or else the cost is prohibitive for most people. And, if you need extended care, you're pretty much screwed, over there. But that seems to be the mantra of the Republican party: be healthy and strong to work and earn your pay while the boss gets richer and richer at your expense. Everyone else is screwed.

[robvalue]

I am amazed at the determination you guys are showing trying to educate this guy. Bravo

I see he's stepped into actual real-life domains now. It's a bit easier to tackle in that regard. I think the systems we have here in the UK are very good on the whole (although our benefit system needs a serious overhaul). I am proud that our country takes care of the vulnerable and the needy. Of course there's always more that can be done, but I think the general spirit even among the public is one of care and charity.

(Except the problem we have with fucking pikey scum, like we just had on our village green. I wouldn't mind so much them illegally parking up there for a few days if they had some respect. I dared to hope this lot wouldn't leave a massive mess behind them. I was wrong, they trashed the place as usual. They're like a criminal cult that operate right out in the open, and the police appear to have their hands tied when dealing with them.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Could deport em all to appalachia. 

[CDF47]

I did go off topic here. Still sticking with the US constitutional republic.

[Mister Agenda]

it's not obvious at all. In fact, the more someone knows about DNA, the less likely they are to find it obvious that it was designed. The top people doing original work in the field are the most likely to think it wasn't designed, for instance, or at least most unlikely to think they've proven that it was designed.

Post source for this.  Is there a Pew or Gallup poll to support this?

Rest of post are more baseless claims.
[/quote]

Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/s...er-issues/

Bolding mine.

---

Provide source of highlighted portion.  Do you have a Pew or Gallup poll to back up this claim?  I know of scientists who believe in the beginning there was 0 space volume with 0 matter.  How much energy can that contain?  Infinite density is impossible.

I'd say 'believe' is too strong a word for the position most scientists working in cosmology take towards the various hypotheses developed for explaining the origin of the universe (if any). You can find scientists who lean towards one or another, but that's about as close to 'believe' as you'll get. Believing a hypothesis that isn't supported by confirming evidence is hasty. They're also cautious about using the word 'impossible'. The 'scientists you know of' would probably be appalled at how you're trying to use their work.

---

What you did is a classic straw man argument and you know it.  I didn't say we don't know how DNA evolved God did it.  I said it is extremely sophisticated and highly complex and specific functional information which programs amino acid components to build functional molecular machines/proteins to operate in the cell is why it is designed.

In other words, you don't understand how natural processes could have resulted in that, therefore they couldn't have, and a Designer/God must have done it. Argument from Incredulity and Ignorance, plus God-of-the-gaps.

---

The Creator can do as He pleases with His creation which allows for some supernatural events.

I'm going to use this.
Let's say there is some sort of creator of the Universe.
Could that creator not have created the Universe in such a way that all the biological machinery would eventually, in time, develop and become just as we see it today?
Could this all not be a product of evolution, planned by the creator?
Or are you of the opinion that the creator is incompetent and his initial act of creation needed some extra tweaking afterwards?

I've a friend who is a deist who made the point yesterday that his God is the greatest, it created life in the long run just by setting the universe in motion and letting the physical laws it established play out, never having to intervene again.