DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

Just what "discoveries" were those. Please reference them, and the scientific support for them.

The only discovery you're going to find at the bottom of that claim is everenas discovery of the word "quantum"..which, as we all know..makes everything about fairy tales sound truthier and sciencier.  Sounding sciency is important, except, ofc, when you're talking about evolutionary biology, in which case science is bullshit

No one has ever said science was bullshit. You are making stuff up again and we have a far better understanding of what science is than you do. You try to pretend it can explain how everything came to be and it does not even come close (nor do scientists pretend they have come close) You are the one ignoring proven facts and living in some fairy tale reality.

---

What specifically convinces you that complex things can just come to life or come into existence from nothing with no intelligence? And don't say billions of years of evolution because that is a cop-out and a straw man argument.

Chaos Theory demonstrates that order arises spontaneously in this universe. 
Galaxies, star systems, black holes are complex systems. They all arose naturally. 

Your assertion (with no evidence) that complex systems can't "come into existence" is flat out false. 
There are countless examples of them. 
You say they are "cop-outs" and "straw-men" ... apparently you don't know what a straw-man argument actually is. 
Your "cop-out" is nothing but your uninformed opinion, and you dismiss it, as you find it too difficult to address.

No one says anything can just "come to life". 
Your assertion that nothing can just "come into existence" is also false. 
You have no evidence that anything "just came into existence". 
"Coming into existence" is a TEMPORAL process, and it requires time, already in place. It's a nonsensical meaningless phrase that presupposes conditions, not in place. 

Reference us to these "discoveries" in "Quantum Biology" and the scientists who made them.

No, the whys of our existence are left to philosophy. Science only attempts to discover and understand things about an already existing and operating universe.

Nope. Wrong again. You are unable to refute ANY point at all made here ... or any proposed chemistry in this video ...
There are countless examples of science addressing "why" things arise ... like CANCER, (which apparently, according to you, is part of the *awesome* design). LOL






Here's what wrong about creationist "improbable" assertions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

There is not one shred of evidence that complex biological systems retain, post mortem, an "identity", nor is there even a proposed mechanism for that.
There is no evidence that human identity even survives, (even though still technically *alive*) catastrophic brain injury.
There is no consciousness ever seen in the absence of at least minimally healthy brains, and that consciousness coincides totally with the degree of brain health and function.
There is no evidence that any part of a human "personal identity" survives biological cessation and decomposition.

"Complexity" IS a straw-man. It is undefined. No one can say what the definition actually is. It's nothing but meaningless "hand-waving". They cannot say what is not "complex enough" thus not requiring a designer, or what the boundary is exactly where a system becomes "complex enough" that it does require a designer. Without precise definitions, it's all a "big nothing" argument.

Wrong. Science attempts only to discover how things are happening, not why they are happening. The word why may be used loosely, but understanding the whys of our existence is not a goal of science.

---

Classy. Perhaps you should learn to not try to tell someone else what they experienced.

More classier than you'll ever be. And where exactly did I tell you what you experienced? 

Stay stupid. It suits you.

"More classier" Great grammar! And then you call me stupid? lol

---

False. Evolution is a human invented term used to describe a process that we discovered was happening, It is not a first cause of DNA, food, consciousness or anything else because a process is what happens after life is created, not the creator of it.

Nope.
Thanks for the *perfect* example of a non-sequitur. 
Actually creation is a process too. 
Oops. 
Try harder, please.

And while we're on the subject, the very "existence" of your deity is also a "process" .... AND you claim it always existed, yet at some point made a decision to intervene and cause something ... all totally temporal concepts .... impossible without time already in place. Such a nonsense language you people spout. Totally without meaning.

Yes, creation is a process that requires a conscious intelligent creator. We always have been and we always will be. Learn to live with it.