DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

You are a science denier. You have been provided all the material over and over again and because it does not fit your illogical and twisted worldview that is based on science that you clearly don't even understand, you just ignore facts. Penrose and Hameroff have several neuorscientists on their team so you are just full of shit about that too. And your article contains nothing but an unproven hypothesis. I am talking about a globally accepted, partially proven and corroborated theory. Use a dictionary if any of the words I have used confuse you.

Bla bla bla ... LOLOLOL I'm a woo-science denier, Woo Princess.  Your theory is bullshit. It's not science. There is no known source for the information to be "transmitted" (received) from .... AND once again, the Woo Princess, instead of addressing the actual science, deflects and talks around the subject. There is NO "universally accepted" anything for these quacks. You cannot name the neuro-scientists on the team, or any other major teams who accept this garbage or are working on it. NOT ONE reference. You're lying. Actually you're SO ignorant, you're *not even* lying. What a giant JOKE.

BTW, the person who employed the ad populum fallacy throughout her posts, really should not be talking about others being illogical.

There are hundreds, if not thousands or millions of crack-pot religionists who have claimed the most bizarre experiences, ALL just as convinced THEIR experiences prove their nonsense in JUST the same way as Everena.
http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Religiou...gures.html

I have had mutual/shared experiences that were verified on the spot and that is just one of the reasons that I have no doubts left at all. And you know absolutely nothing about what anyone else has experienced, and may I add that not one believer in the entire world cares what you think about what they have experienced, so just save it for your atheist friends.

---

You are welcome and it was a total flop, but I am so glad you find it interesting. They did use it to program a lego robot that had a motor, but no one in the entire world besides you is impressed that billions and billions of dollars can create a computer virtual brain that can do no more than crash an already motorized robot into a wall and then back away from it. And I did already mention the robot in my last post to you. Did you forget what I wrote? 
Anyway, after the original goal of creating a virtual worm flopped, they went to the motorized robot with just the virtual brain and now to just computer simulation of the worm. (Can you say, I want my billions of research dollars back?) I guess I could check the news article from 2012 when this originally happened, if you still don't believe me with three articles that maybe don't say those exact words I used, but none the less, make it very clear.

I won't pretend that I know enough about the experiment to call it a flop.  That you have no hesitation in doing so may simply reflect your lack of understanding of the issue.  Describing it as a flop is your word, and you appear to be a dumbass,

Everena: I could say the same of you. And you obviously have reading comp issues. You're also one of those who thinks evolution created everything on our planet right? LOL

so I'm not inclined to put a lot of stock in it unless you can document someone who actually does possess the requisite expertise and who also describes it as a flop.  You claimed that the model, upon being activated, just sat there.  A claim which appears clearly false.

Everena: No, it is pretty obviously true, since they had to go from virtual worm to putting just the brain in a motorized lego robot. Don't you think they would have mentioned if it was a success? And not needed to put part of it in a motorized robot to get it to do something.. anything? Just think about it for a minute......


 That you are not particularly adept at reasoning is not a particularly troubling failing.  That you can't even complete the rather rudimentary task of documenting actual support for your claims is somewhat troubling.

Everena: I really thought you would just figure it out from what I linked you....My mistake.


 If you're not basing your claims upon the things you are reading, I have to wonder exactly what it is you are basing them on.

Everena: I read about all this years ago when it happened.

 The only obvious conclusion is that the supposed "facts" and claims you spout have their origin largely within your imagination, and that there is a significant disconnect between your brain and reality.  Are you sure that you, too, do not have a psychotic disorder?

Everena: Yes, I am quite sure.