DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

No, I sure didn't. You are nothing but a total fraud and a liar. I said they are not alive in the same sense that we and the animals are.

Let's check with reality, shall we? 




Yes let's check reality

crea·ture
/ˈkrēCHər/Submit
noun: creature; plural noun: creatures

1. an animal, as distinct from a human being.
2. an animal or a person.
3. a fictional or imaginary being, typically a frightening one.

Everena: Plants are not conscious life or living creatures, and if you feel so bad about eating the food this earth provides for you, then by all means stop eating it because you think it is so evil to do it. Do you think it hurts an orange tree or an apple tree when their fruit falls to the ground and we it? Does it hurt a bush when we eat berries before they fall to the ground? Who in the f-ck do you think you're kidding?

Emphasis mine. See where you said plants aren't living creatures? If you don't believe me then you can click on that little green arrow next to "Everena Wrote:" and be instantly teleported back to the original incriminating text.

I will graciously accept your apology for calling me a liar and a fraud any time you're ready.

I will accept your apology for lying about me and pretending that plants are creatures.

Paleophyte
Looks like you pretty clearly said "Fungi are plants."
Make that two apologies.

Everena:
No, Kidding I said it. It's still what I think too, regardless of how biology classifies them.  They are similiar enough to be the same classification. And I owe you nothing. You owe me like ten apologies for being a lying, condescending ass as I win every single argument with you. Just face it- there is a God. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Nay_Sayer]

This was a scientific thread with religious implications.  Then I was asked religious questions which is understandable.

No, I don't.

---

Well that's a terrifying fact.

Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

---

This was a scientific thread with religious implications.  Then I was asked religious questions which is understandable.

You are a denier of the truth.

---

The imperfections in design are due to the fall.

---

No, I don't.

---

Well that's a terrifying fact.

Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

You should be taking your own hints because God exists.

---

Just caught up with the last 5 pages.  Couldn't respond to everyone.
[/quote]



Duh. But you have the wrong god and you are going to needlessly suffer.

I don't want that thus I pray for you.

I would add everdumb with you in that but currently, she's explaining her conversion to Buddism, though in this thread it's getting lost.

---

This was a scientific thread with religious implications.  Then I was asked religious questions which is understandable.

Let's check with reality, shall we? 




Yes let's check reality

crea·ture
/ˈkrēCHər/Submit
noun: creature; plural noun: creatures

1. an animal, as distinct from a human being.
2. an animal or a person.
3. a fictional or imaginary being, typically a frightening one.







I will accept your apology for lying about me and pretending that plants are creatures.

Paleophyte
Looks like you pretty clearly said "Fungi are plants."
Make that two apologies.

Everena:
No, Kidding I said it. It's still what I think too, regardless of how biology classifies them.  They are similiar enough to be the same classification. And I owe you nothing. You owe me like ten apologies for being a lying, condescending ass as I win every single argument with you. Just face it- there is a God. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

Fascinating, Now I'm unfamiliar with the  Four Great Bodhisattva Vows, could you elaborate?

[Paleophyte]

Nobody thinks of most animals as conscious life either.

Then perhaps they should not be classified as animals. Only conscious life should be classified as animals.

And perhaps you should learn why organisms are classified the way they are rather than expecting the entire field of biology to conform to your ignorant bleating.

And why don't you answer my question about DNA since it is the topic of this thread.

Because you didn't ask me. I joined this thread round about the point you were busy howling about Orch-OR in a completely OT paroxysm.

Explain how something "becomes complex" without a driving force of conscious intelligence.

Self-organized criticality: emergent complex behavior in physical and biological systems

Try to read beyond the first word in the title this time.

[Everena]

@Everena:

Indeed, Prof. James M. Tour was a signator to Discovery Institute's "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," but has he ever had a scientific paper critical of modern evolutionary theory published in NATURE or any other legitimate peer-reviewed scientific journal?

He is, by the way, a synthetic organic chemist whose scientific field is in nanotechnology, not modern evolutionary theory.

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, 
graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. 


It is his understanding of molecular chemistry. He is saying no one understands how macroevolution could possibly ever happen. NO ONE

"Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science – with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public – because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said – I say, “Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?” Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go “Uh-uh. Nope.” These people are just so far off, on how to believe this stuff came together. I’ve sat with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners. Sometimes I will say, “Do you understand this?”And if they’re afraid to say “No,” they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it."


I was once brought in by the Dean of the Department, many years ago, and he was a chemist. He was kind of concerned about some things. I said, “Let me ask you something. You’re a chemist. Do you understand this? How do you get DNA without a cell membrane? And how do you get a cell membrane without a DNA? And how does all this come together from this piece of jelly?” We have no idea, we have no idea. I said, “Isn’t it interesting that you, the Dean of science, and I, the chemistry professor, can talk about this quietly in your office, but we can’t go out there and talk about this?”

And this is from his website:

I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (sometimes called “ID”) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments and I find some of them intriguing, but I prefer to be free of that intelligent design label. As a modern-day scientist, I do not know how to prove intelligent design using my most sophisticated analytical tools— the canonical tools are, by their own admission, inadequate to answer the intelligent design question. I cannot lay the issue at the doorstep of a benevolent creator or even an impersonal intelligent designer. All I can presently say is that my chemical tools do not permit my assessment of intelligent design.

I have written a long article on the origin of life: http://inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist. It is clear, chemists and biologists are clueless. I wrote, “Those who think scientists understand the issues of prebiotic chemistry are wholly misinformed. Nobody understands them. Maybe one day we will. But that day is far from today. It would be far more helpful (and hopeful) to expose students to the massive gaps in our understanding. They may find a firmer—and possibly a radically different—scientific theory. The basis upon which we as scientists are relying is so shaky that we must openly state the situation for what it is: it is a mystery.” Note that since the time of my submission of that commentary cited above, articles continue to be published on prebiotic chemistry, so I will link to my short critiques of a few of those newer articles so that the interested reader can get an ongoing synthetic chemist’s assessment of the proposals: .

[Amarok]

No of this biographical data refutes his point . He isn't an expert in the field so his opinion means nothing .

---

crea·ture
/ˈkrēCHər/Submit
noun: creature; plural noun: creatures


1. an animal, as distinct from a human being.
2. an animal or a person.
3. a fictional or imaginary being, typically a frightening one.

Isn't even scientific definition in the first place

---

No, Kidding I said it. It's still what I think too, regardless of how biology classifies them.  They are similiar enough to be the same classification. And I owe you nothing. You owe me like ten apologies for being a lying, condescending ass as I win every single argument with you. Just face it- there is a God. It's a good thing, not a bad thing.

How biology classifies them is only relevance and no they are more then different enough to be in a separate category which is why they are one in the first place . One far closer to animals .So again you fail as any personnel definition you present is bullocks

---

Then perhaps they should not be classified as animals. Only conscious life should be classified as animals.

And perhaps you should learn why organisms are classified the way they are rather than expecting the entire field of biology to conform to your ignorant bleating.

And why don't you answer my question about DNA since it is the topic of this thread.

Because you didn't ask me. I joined this thread round about the point you were busy howling about Orch-OR in a completely OT paroxysm.

Explain how something "becomes complex" without a driving force of conscious intelligence.

Self-organized criticality: emergent complex behavior in physical and biological systems

Try to read beyond the first word in the title this time.

Her obsession with categorizing life by consciousness is fucking hilarious . Sorry it's not defined that way. Simply shoving all the non conscience life aside is simply foolish .

[Everena]

Self-organized criticality: emergent complex behavior in physical and biological systems

Try to read beyond the first word in the title this time.

Nope. Explain, in your own words, from your own understanding of it, how the complexity of DNA could ever possibly come about without an intelligent driving force.

[CDF47]

Man had free will and chose to rebel against God.

God lied to man first.

And did you miss the bit where this was all going on for billions of years before humans evolved?

No He did not.

[Amarok]

Nope. Explain, in your own words, from your own understanding of it, how the complexity of DNA could ever possibly come about without an intelligent driving force.

Or you could read the link

[CDF47]

Are you an example of what no schooling does to someone? And my parents were agnostic and atheist and I attended public school and then 3 different state Universities because I changed my major twice.

Going to school doesn't mean you ever learned anything.

And plants are not conscious life, and they are totally different from conscious life in literally trillions of ways.

I never said they were conscious. You said they weren't alive! The fact that you could ever consider that an option beggars the imagination.

No, I sure didn't. You are nothing but a total fraud and a liar. I said they are not alive in the same sense that we and the animals are.

Also I am sure my scientific literacy is just as good or better than yours is.

I'm sure you believe that. I'm equally sure you're wrong. You had to be told that plants were alive and that mushrooms aren't plants. So did I mind you, but I was 5 years old at the time.

Liar. You are lying and mis-stating what I said about plants being alive, and fungi are similiar enough to plants to be classified as plants, no matter what some idiot like you thinks and no matter what separate made up kingdom they may belong to according to biology. 
And the whole point was that they are not conscious life! I was not even having the discussion with you. You are just pissed off because I have proven you wrong about every single thing we have discussed.

How are you on parasitism? Gnawing on your food while it lives is about as horrific as it gets. More evidence for a malevolent god.

Stop eating then! You are ungrateful and intentionally illogical about everything.

When they start misrepresenting what you say, you know you got them.

[Everena]

And perhaps you should learn why organisms are classified the way they are rather than expecting the entire field of biology to conform to your ignorant bleating.

Her obsession with categorizing life by consciousness  is fucking hilarious . Sorry it's not defined that way.

They should be sorry they didn't categorize them that way. It makes them look like a bunch of incompetent bumbling morons who don't know what they're doing.
Those of us who do not worship biologists, and just see them as regular average people, just want honest, smart science from them. They keep failing at it though. My prediction is the Theory of Evolution is going to be changed so much with all the new discoveries, it will no longer even be the same theory.

---

Nope. Explain, in your own words, from your own understanding of it, how the complexity of DNA could ever possibly come about without an intelligent driving force.

Or you could read the link

So you're saying you don't have a clue. And that link says nothing that answers my question.