DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Yes, DNA is a functional code that programs an assembly line construction of amino acids to parts which are then formed into proteins by a barrel shaped machine.  The protein construct is then transported to the cell to perform its function.  This is manufacturing engineering 101 at a nano-scale.  This did not come about by chance alone which is all natural causes are.

That's exactly correct. 
It did not happen "by chance". 
As was demonstrated in the Szostack video, (which you were unable to even discuss), "chance " was not how it happened. 
Once the evolutionary process has begun, (which wasn't even "chance"), the next step is not "chance. 
You clearly understand nothing about chemistry, physics, or evolution. 
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1...is-random/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightat...nt-chance/
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...ns_faq.php

---

-It's not about "requiring", which seems to be the source of your confusion.  Either something "is" or it "isn't"  If it exists independently, then nothing else is needed.
- Already provided you a definition from M-W dictionary.  If you don't accept it, then your problem not mine.
-I did the same things I still do.  Adding one thing doesn't mean I change everything else.  Still read, write, publish, spend time with my dogs and cats, video games, help out my neighbors, etc... 

Always the deflection and obfuscation. The definition you provided was inadequate, and did not address the questions asked of you. 
It almost makes one think you don't even understand the questions. *That* couldn't be, no could it ?
LMAO
You're a total fraud. 
I've known it since you first response to my post where you blustered about a "string of logical fallacies" which you couldn't even name.

You are inadequate and boring.  You state conclusions based on what real scientists have said, then act like your psuedo-conclusion was based on their observations, when they said something completely different.  Seems to be a trend with you.  I could understand it 1 or 2 times by mistake, but when it's several times a week it gets to be tedious listening to your nonsense.

Now we're back at the dictionary being inadequate to provide definitions.  Of course the real issue at hand has been obvious.  You don't want to accept the definition because you want to assert that something can't be defined.  Well guess what, it has been defined.  Your opinion of inadequacy has more to do with you than it.

If you are in a library and said to a child, "go find me a definition of 'star'", they will likely go to a dictionary and find a definition for it.  They're not wrong, because it's common sense to use a dictionary for definitions.  That is one of its functions.  Now we have someone who is presumably a grown adult, or at least high school level saying "no dictionary."   Nope sorry, that doesn't fly with the sane.