DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

False. It is not beyond reasonable doubt. There is no observable evidence of one species turning into an entirely different species.

False and you know it 

Oh really? Show me some evidence of one species turning into an entirely different species that is not plants.


So, you can't because you're wrong, got it

It's been done  so this game won't work and i don't need to convince the agenda driven their wrong 

You mean you have no argument because you're wrong. People who are right, prove it.

No, it was written that way, because it casts more doubt on the theory whether you like it or not. And none of the articles I posted were from creationists. They were all from science.

Yes it was and no it doesn't  in the slightest and the scientists know it as did every "Real " scientist who read it and what i like is not even a factor here. The only people who interpreted it your way were quacks and creationists And wither you used creationist sites you did the same bullshit they did .

Pretend whatever makes you happy. You all just choose to be science deniers as soon as science does not agree with your twisted illogical worldview.

---

At work.

No kidding, and I have already said that I think fungi and sponges are plants and should be classified as such. Can you not come up with even one other thing in my  810 posts over the last 18 days? I start on page 588. Go right ahead and dig in.

Yes Dear.

But you already said we had to be;

 A) Specific.
.
And name one thing.

I was specific. I was correct. I was singular.

No amount of ".... But, but maah feels!" is going to, in effect, cut it.

 To which we will most probably , and simply, see more iterations of ".. But, but I said so."

I was not even talking to you, and what was insinuated was not about me thinking fungi should be classified as plants. Name one thing besides that if you really want to join in on this lame lie. I'll be waiting.

---

I think if a species mates in a consious manner, and has a penis that it injects a female with, it is conscious.

That's a fascinating definition. I think I begin to see why you think "microtubules" are involved.

Your definition is lovingly circular. A species must be conscious in order to mate "in a conscious manner" and if it mates "in a conscious manner" then clearly it is conscious. But what makes you think that barnacles do anything other than blindly follow instinct? It isn't as if the have a lot to work with in terms of brains.

Perhaps you'd be better served with a definition than some arbitrary criteria cobbled together.

I don't believe there is any such thing as blind instinct. There is consciousness and there is being affected by the environment and that's it.

I understand the words. I also understand that you have provided nothing that explains how the complexity of DNA could come about without an intelligent driving force. The big rock in your front yard did not create DNA. No matter what you think can arise from an inanimate object, it is literally not possible or logical in any way. And you obviously have no argument of your own.

Then explain to me what complexity means.

The question is not about what complexity means. The question is how could DNA come about without an intelligent driving force? The answer is: It could not.