DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Mister Agenda]

I love science.  Clearly, you don't, because you will resort to nonsense and call it science.

Re-read the OP.  It is clear DNA is designed.

It's clear that YOU think it's designed. You being convinced it's designed and not being able to grasp how anyone could possibly disagree with is not proof:

proof
noun

noun: proof; plural noun: proofs

1. evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

You've established the fact that DNA is complex, which hello, everyone here already knew. You haven't established that it's a fact that DNA was designed by a being of some sort and really, you haven't even presented an argument for it. 'It's obvious!' is a claim, not an argument. To those of us aware of the plausible natural explanations, 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.

Your premise is:

1. DNA is super-complex! (yep, it sure is, sound premise, good work!)
2. Nothing
3. Only things that are designed are super-complex! (unsupported conclusion, the support would be to the right of '2.')

You haven't shown your work, you just repeat your conclusion ad nauseum. What do you have for '2.'?

---

Thanks for confirming what I posted:

You're just a noise generator. A spammer. You don't even know what a debate is.

It's definitely not what the atheists are doing in this thread which is name calling, insults, wining, crying, straw-man arguments,.....

We already tried evidence, logic, and science; but you seem to be immune. Having fun with you is more constructive than trying to get somewhere in a conversation with you under the circumstances.

---

Probability of making a protein:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQoQgTqj3pU

If only we had some idea of how proteins could come to be besides being the first step in abiogenesis instead of a late step. If only....

---

There are only so many posts and links I can read and watch in a 114 page thread that is only days old.

If you refrain from making replies where you only say something you said before or paraphrase what you've already said, the thread would move considerably slower. It's okay to think before you respond, and you don't have to reply to everything as long as you reply to what's most relevant.

---

BS argument = nothing created everything (just natural processes) - yeah right

Natural processes aren't 'nothing'. That is what is called a 'straw man fallacy'. It's what you do when your debate opponent's real position is too hard to refute and you're dishonest.