DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

This is a terrible argument.  Cherry picking scientists who only say what you want them to say wouldn't be scientific. That's why we have peer review.   If someone shares scientific work, that is the standard they are held by regardless of religion, ideology, or worldview.  As soon as you start adding unnecessary bias, then you begin floating out of the realm of scientific study.

Have your read Stephen Myer's books?  They are not peer reviewed, nor are they "scientific work".  Yes, adding unnecessary bias is not desirable, as is writing about something you have never read.

Why would his books necessarily be peer-reviewed?  They can be, but depending on the nature of the scientific work, a lot of times books aren't.  You may get a foreword from someone in a similar field with an endorsement.  Now journal articles are usually different when it comes to scientific works because they're meant to be a short rundown of the study and it's easy to use as a resource by looking at the parameters and numerical values assigned to variable.

I haven't read any of Stephen Myer's books personally.  Can you share something from one of them and why you dispute his findings and what you would assert differently through your own studies?

---

It has been disputed.  Here's one example.

There are plenty more as well.

We're not talking about a UCA. DNA PROVES humans and monkeys had a common ancestor. 
5 articles that dispute that should do.

If you keep changing your requirements or demands every time someone refutes one of your claims, then say "I meant that" then it seems begins to appear disingenuous.  Simply saying "DNA proves" doesn't demonstrate how it proves.  That's why it's good to use citations if you can't explain it outright in your own terms, and still it's good to provide sources for credibility, and absolutely if you're sharing someone else's work.

[LadyForCamus]

Who’s the new guy? *popcorn*

[Amarok]

No, I am not.  No, I am not.  No, there most definitely is no

Wrong

---

Why would his books necessarily be peer-reviewed?  They can be, but depending on the nature of the scientific work, a lot of times books aren't.  You may get a foreword from someone in a similar field with an endorsement.  Now journal articles are usually different when it comes to scientific works because they're meant to be a short rundown of the study and it's easy to use as a resource by looking at the parameters and numerical values assigned to variable.

I haven't read any of Stephen Myer's books personally.  Can you share something from one of them and why you dispute his findings and what you would assert differently through your own studies?

So excuses then 

If you keep changing your requirements or demands every time someone refutes one of your claims, then say "I meant that" then it seems begins to appear disingenuous.  Simply saying "DNA proves" doesn't demonstrate how it proves.  That's why it's good to use citations if you can't explain it outright in your own terms, and still it's good to provide sources for credibility, and absolutely if you're sharing someone else's work.

He didn't change his requirements nor was he shown to be wrong

---

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

Congrats Meyers a guy who admits he only went into science to "destroy Darwinism " and who work has widely panned . So he both biased and a crank .

---

Why would his books necessarily be peer-reviewed?  They can be, but depending on the nature of the scientific work, a lot of times books aren't.  You may get a foreword from someone in a similar field with an endorsement.  Now journal articles are usually different when it comes to scientific works because they're meant to be a short rundown of the study and it's easy to use as a resource by looking at the parameters and numerical values assigned to variable.

I haven't read any of Stephen Myer's books personally.  Can you share something from one of them and why you dispute his findings and what you would assert differently through your own studies

Meyers has never  done  any peer review research into ID and he dodges when  he's asked to produce any. He would rather print pop books for uneducated to see ID win in the political ring rather then scientific one and leech of his funders .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

No, I am not.  No, I am not.  No, there most definitely is no

Wrong

---

Why would his books necessarily be peer-reviewed?  They can be, but depending on the nature of the scientific work, a lot of times books aren't.  You may get a foreword from someone in a similar field with an endorsement.  Now journal articles are usually different when it comes to scientific works because they're meant to be a short rundown of the study and it's easy to use as a resource by looking at the parameters and numerical values assigned to variable.

I haven't read any of Stephen Myer's books personally.  Can you share something from one of them and why you dispute his findings and what you would assert differently through your own studies?

So excuses then 

If you keep changing your requirements or demands every time someone refutes one of your claims, then say "I meant that" then it seems begins to appear disingenuous.  Simply saying "DNA proves" doesn't demonstrate how it proves.  That's why it's good to use citations if you can't explain it outright in your own terms, and still it's good to provide sources for credibility, and absolutely if you're sharing someone else's work.

He didn't change his requirements nor was he shown to be wrong

---

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

Congrats Meyers a guy who admits he only went into science to "destroy Darwinism " and who work has widely panned . So he both biased and a crank .

---

Why would his books necessarily be peer-reviewed?  They can be, but depending on the nature of the scientific work, a lot of times books aren't.  You may get a foreword from someone in a similar field with an endorsement.  Now journal articles are usually different when it comes to scientific works because they're meant to be a short rundown of the study and it's easy to use as a resource by looking at the parameters and numerical values assigned to variable.

I haven't read any of Stephen Myer's books personally.  Can you share something from one of them and why you dispute his findings and what you would assert differently through your own studies

Meyers has never  done  any peer review research into ID and he dodges when  he's asked to produce any. He would rather print pop books for uneducated to see ID win in the political ring rather then scientific one and leech of his funders .

So now a question is an excuse?  He said "no scientists" suggest such a thing.  If he says "no" and there's just one, then his statement fails.  Unless a 0 value = a value of 1, then you're both wrong now. Congratulations.

[Amarok]

So now a question is an excuse?  He said "no scientists" suggest such a thing.  If he says "no" and there's just one, then his statement fails.  Unless a 0 value = a value of 1, then you're both wrong now. Congratulations.

1. As i said excuses
2.And again nope 
So i'm afraid you are wrong congratulations

[Rahn127]

And the winner of the denial Olympics goes to ..........people who believe fairy tales over proven scientific evidence.

If you want to believe the Adam, Lilith & Eve story, go right ahead. You can also believe that Darth Vader is your next door neighbor for all I care.
I should not expect delusional people to be accepting of science and mountains of evidence.

You be you.

[CDF47]

He is a brilliant scientist with a PhD from Cambridge.  He is none of things you label him as.

Really?

What was his major in his Christian “university”?

What field of science was it in which he was gainfully employed?

What was his PhD in?

Does any of this give him qualification to speak about biology, genetics, origin of life?

No?

Then What motivated him to presume authoratativeness despite his lack of qualification and related professional accomplishemmet, using totally unrelated PhD as camouflage?  Ah, yes, his matriculation from a Christian establishement of higher “learning” offers a clue.

He studied the philosophy of science to earn a PhD from Cambridge university.  He has a lot of knowledge about genetics and biology.

---

I’m still waiting for CDF to explain why he thinks simple organisms with short life spans can speciate, but larger and more complex organisms can’t.

They just simply don't.

---

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

I have read and studied two of Meyer's books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin's Doubt, as well of some of his other writings.

His arguments are laced with the same logical fallacies and misrepresentations from his Discovery Institute Masters, most commonly the argument from incredulity (one of your favorites), the mere assertion (your absolute favorite), the strawman fallacy, among others, rending them ineffective and unconvincing.  He does not write like a scientist.  He writes like a person with a personal agenda who pretends to be a scientist.  And that agenda is a religious agenda.  As is typical of militant Abrahamic creationists on a salary, he complains (again, using fallacious reasoning) about established science, but only against science which conflicts with his religious beliefs.  He offers no alternative, except for goddidit.  He lies.  He misrepresents.  He conflates.  He pretends to be all "sciency".  He repeats previously refuted words strings (such as specified complex information) without scientific definitions or any suggestion on how to measure or test them.

He pretends to present science, which is only designed to convince gullible theists such as yourself.  He succeeds, and you are a classic example.

Basically, Meyer is a disingenuous and lying whore for the Discovery Institute.  And you are a gullible acolyte of this lying whore for the Discovery Institute.

Your continued reliance on his nonsense, and the nonsense from similar imposters and con men, explains much.

Now tell me how you really feel about him...LOL

[Amarok]

He studied the philosophy of science to earn a PhD from Cambridge university.  He has a lot of knowledge about genetics and biology

He's a credentialed snake oil salesmen with no serious peer reviews in the position he's advocating

[CDF47]

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer disputes it as one scientist.

Stevie Weavie Meyer is a debunked fool.
"Stephen C. Meyer is an American advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute, which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement. Before joining the DI, Meyer was a professor at Whitworth College". Wikipedia

He holds a PhD from Cambridge.  He is no fool.

[Amarok]

They just simply don't.

That's not an answer it's a compartmentalization

---

Now tell me how you really feel about him...LOL

Because it's true