DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Abaddon_ire]

Sorry, but you sufficiently borked the quotes that I can't tell which are your words and which are somebody else's.

[Mister Agenda]

So what stops micro-changes from accumulating?

I've asked this several times now and not one single attempt at an answer.

Evolution.  It's not designed to change kinds.

Evolution wasn't designed at all. It's just what happens once you have high fidelity but imperfect replication. 'Kinds' is a biblical term with no specific scientific meaning.

One of the most ludicrous parts of the creationist rejection of 'macroevolution' is that it doesn't even contradict the Bible. If a 'kind' gave birth to anything but it's own 'kind', it would falsify evolution, which operates on a much vaster scale. Current species came into being across a continuum of thousands of generations, no generation of which was a different 'kind' than the preceding one. It's only when you look at the accumulated changes across those thousands of generations that significant differences occur. Every 'kind' DOES give birth to it's own 'kind', and evolution is evidence of that. A scientific theory that proves that one kind never gives birth to another, and creationists reject it, because 'kinds' are not preserved over millions of generations unless they are very well adapted to their environment and that environment doesn't change much (and even then, if you could clone a specimen that many generations back, it couldn't interbreed with its modern descendants, even if they look the same, because of genetic drift).

---

The 613 commands were for the Jews of the OT.  We are under grace in the NT.  Dragons, beasts,..., are used symbolically in the Bible.

Lots of things are used symbolically in the Bible. It's not a book of science and does not claim to be. Even if inspired by God, God clearly did not intend to explain to the Hebrews anything like a scientific origin for life or the universe. It was metaphorical, and the details of biology weren't important to the meaning of the stories. I think many of the ancients would be surprised that so many people today take their stories more literally than most of the people who told them did.

---

So at that point does it stop changing or adapting any more ? and micro changes no longer take place.
Also what exactly is a 'kind' ?

I presume microevolution can continue within the kind.  Kind is a species.

Speciation has been scientifically observed many times. I suggest you retreat from 'kind is a species'. We've had these conversations before with others, keep going up the chain of taxonomy until you reach a point that the number of changes required for the change to be observed is longer than a human lifespan and claim fossils and genetic relationships proven by DNA don't count as evidence. Different partner, same dance.

---

Not according to Jesus

Dr. Steven C. Meyer, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, and numerous others...., all thought the Big Bang came from a singularity.  Hawking's calculations showed space with infinite curvature at this point so at the point of 0 time there was 0 space.  How much matter and energy exists in 0 space?

And did they think the singularity came from absolute nothingness? Was Hawking the only scientist you could find who said what you want to claim is our position who was too dead to challenge how you're using his work?

---

So the scientific community involved  in these area's don't have a basic understanding ?

I never said they didn't.  There is a bias in the community to keep ID out.  See the movie "Expelled."  Have you ever seen it?

Laughed all the way through. What a piece of dishonest trash masquerading as a documentary!

---

Maybe you could share your irrefutable evidence with them

Many of them already know it and just try to suppress it.

Why? Science rewards those who upend current theories. The Nobel is an example of a fiduciary reward. The person who proves DNA was designed will go down in history for one of the most significant discoveries ever made. Rather than trying to suppress it, they should be competing to be the first to publish.

---

It wasn't even remotely close to rhyming.  Continued prayers lost one.

I will pray for you though to the True God.

Please pray particularly for me. If there's a one true God, I'd like to know. I'm very open to a 'road to Damascus moment', and I haven't even being persecuting Jews, so with you praying for me, that ought to do it. Say by Wednesday next, so I can share the miracle with my fellow doubters?

And if you have enough pull for that, maybe get him to end childhood Leukemia. Not asking for a lot, just one disease to miraculously stop inflicting us. He can even substitute an extra one for adults to balance things out if that's what he likes.

---

Exactly what truthers do and is done with this movie .exposing it's many lies and distortions of real science .

You mean exposing the liars and identifying real science.

So you're a truther, too? At least you're consistent.

---

Yes, indeed.  Anything that protects against asinine bible bullshit is quite valuable as a vaccine.

The plague of religion has spread unchecked for far too long.  Amusingly, like the Black Death, it too is spread by rats.

Neo-Darwinism which leads to atheism is the plague. 

Not according to the Pope.

---

I am an atheist. I believe in no god or gods. The simple fact remains that as described in your holey babble, your god is a nasty piece of work.

And you like it.

No, He's not.  He is just, merciful, trustworthy, and loving.  He has a wrath though and He punishes sin.

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil

---

I read the Bible cover to cover and study it frequently.  The accusations you make are not warranted.  God allows evil to happen but He is not the author of evil, satan is.  You are just a hater of God.

And who created Satan? Who allowed a serpent in the Garden to tempt naïve humans who didn't know good from evil?

The bacteria is still bacteria and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

But not the same species of bacteria, and not the same species of fruit fly. You better run away from kind=species fast. Like they all do.

---

The fruit fly is still a fruit fly.  The ape is still an ape. 

And there are multiple species of each. You said a kind is a species. Were I you and aware that 'kind' as species is absurd, I would retreat to ''kind' is clade. That way, only fossils and DNA prove you wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

---

But a different species of each.

Or are you going to tell me that there is only one species of bacteria on Earth, as well as only one species of Fruit Fly?
Don't change the meaning of words, now!

They are still the same genus and still the same family.

I recommend that of those two, go with genus. That will at least cut down on the real-time counter-examples.

---

Not at all.  This thread is DNA proves the existence of a Creator which I have clearly shown.  

Yeah, kind may refer to a genus.

It can refer to pretty much whatever biological classification you want, or want to make up, since it has no specific scientific meaning.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL.....

What "kind" do the following belong to;

---

1.   Tiger
2.   St. Augustine Grass
3.   Mouse
4.   Tobacco
5.   Wolf
6.   Psilocybe Cubensis
7.   Great White Shark
8.   Bacillus Thuringiensis
9.   Live Oak
10. Potato
11. Orangutan
12. Hyena
13. Mackeral
14. Housecat
15. Corn
16. Beagle
17. Humans
18. Stingray
19. Fruit Bat
20. Eggplant
21. Lemur
22. Mycobacterium Avium
23. Agaricus Bisporus
24. Chestnut
25. Horsetail Fern

---

[LostLocke]

LOL.....

What "kind" do the following belong to;

Easy...

1. Get it off me, kind
2. I gotta cut this shit again, kind
3. Cute nuisance, kind
4. Smoke it, kind
.....

[CDF47]

it's not obvious at all. In fact, the more someone knows about DNA, the less likely they are to find it obvious that it was designed. The top people doing original work in the field are the most likely to think it wasn't designed, for instance, or at least most unlikely to think they've proven that it was designed.

Post source for this.  Is there a Pew or Gallup poll to support this?

Rest of post are more baseless claims.

Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public.

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/s...er-issues/

Bolding mine.

---

Provide source of highlighted portion.  Do you have a Pew or Gallup poll to back up this claim?  I know of scientists who believe in the beginning there was 0 space volume with 0 matter.  How much energy can that contain?  Infinite density is impossible.

I'd say 'believe' is too strong a word for the position most scientists working in cosmology take towards the various hypotheses developed for explaining the origin of the universe (if any). You can find scientists who lean towards one or another, but that's about as close to 'believe' as you'll get. Believing a hypothesis that isn't supported by confirming evidence is hasty. They're also cautious about using the word 'impossible'. The 'scientists you know of' would probably be appalled at how you're trying to use their work.

---

What you did is a classic straw man argument and you know it.  I didn't say we don't know how DNA evolved God did it.  I said it is extremely sophisticated and highly complex and specific functional information which programs amino acid components to build functional molecular machines/proteins to operate in the cell is why it is designed.

In other words, you don't understand how natural processes could have resulted in that, therefore they couldn't have, and a Designer/God must have done it. Argument from Incredulity and Ignorance, plus God-of-the-gaps.

---

I'm going to use this.
Let's say there is some sort of creator of the Universe.
Could that creator not have created the Universe in such a way that all the biological machinery would eventually, in time, develop and become just as we see it today?
Could this all not be a product of evolution, planned by the creator?
Or are you of the opinion that the creator is incompetent and his initial act of creation needed some extra tweaking afterwards?

I've a friend who is a deist who made the point yesterday that his God is the greatest, it created life in the long run just by setting the universe in motion and letting the physical laws it established play out, never having to intervene again.
[/quote]

With new information being input into the design, it shows the Creator is still involved with the creation.  I believe the Creator is a personal Creator who wants to be involved with His creation.

[Abaddon_ire]

With new information being input into the design, it shows the Creator is still involved with the creation.  I believe the Creator is a personal Creator who wants to be involved with His creation.

Really? So you claim that your god directly interacts with reality? Is that right?

[CDF47]

Evolution.  It's not designed to change kinds.

Evolution wasn't designed at all. It's just what happens once you have high fidelity but imperfect replication. 'Kinds' is a biblical term with no specific scientific meaning.

One of the most ludicrous parts of the creationist rejection of 'macroevolution' is that it doesn't even contradict the Bible. If a 'kind' gave birth to anything but it's own 'kind', it would falsify evolution, which operates on a much vaster scale. Current species came into being across a continuum of thousands of generations, no generation of which was a different 'kind' than the preceding one. It's only when you look at the accumulated changes across those thousands of generations that significant differences occur. Every 'kind' DOES give birth to it's own 'kind', and evolution is evidence of that. A scientific theory that proves that one kind never gives birth to another, and creationists reject it, because 'kinds' are not preserved over millions of generations unless they are very well adapted to their environment and that environment doesn't change much (and even then, if you could clone a specimen that many generations back, it couldn't interbreed with its modern descendants, even if they look the same, because of genetic drift).

---

The 613 commands were for the Jews of the OT.  We are under grace in the NT.  Dragons, beasts,..., are used symbolically in the Bible.

Lots of things are used symbolically in the Bible. It's not a book of science and does not claim to be. Even if inspired by God, God clearly did not intend to explain to the Hebrews anything like a scientific origin for life or the universe. It was metaphorical, and the details of biology weren't important to the meaning of the stories. I think many of the ancients would be surprised that so many people today take their stories more literally than most of the people who told them did.

---

I presume microevolution can continue within the kind.  Kind is a species.

Speciation has been scientifically observed many times. I suggest you retreat from 'kind is a species'. We've had these conversations before with others, keep going up the chain of taxonomy until you reach a point that the number of changes required for the change to be observed is longer than a human lifespan and claim fossils and genetic relationships proven by DNA don't count as evidence. Different partner, same dance.

---

Dr. Steven C. Meyer, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, and numerous others...., all thought the Big Bang came from a singularity.  Hawking's calculations showed space with infinite curvature at this point so at the point of 0 time there was 0 space.  How much matter and energy exists in 0 space?

And did they think the singularity came from absolute nothingness? Was Hawking the only scientist you could find who said what you want to claim is our position who was too dead to challenge how you're using his work?

---

I never said they didn't.  There is a bias in the community to keep ID out.  See the movie "Expelled."  Have you ever seen it?

Laughed all the way through. What a piece of dishonest trash masquerading as a documentary!

---

Many of them already know it and just try to suppress it.

Why? Science rewards those who upend current theories. The Nobel is an example of a fiduciary reward. The person who proves DNA was designed will go down in history for one of the most significant discoveries ever made. Rather than trying to suppress it, they should be competing to be the first to publish.

---

I will pray for you though to the True God.

Please pray particularly for me. If there's a one true God, I'd like to know. I'm very open to a 'road to Damascus moment', and I haven't even being persecuting Jews, so with you praying for me, that ought to do it. Say by Wednesday next, so I can share the miracle with my fellow doubters?

And if you have enough pull for that, maybe get him to end childhood Leukemia. Not asking for a lot, just one disease to miraculously stop inflicting us. He can even substitute an extra one for adults to balance things out if that's what he likes.

---

You mean exposing the liars and identifying real science.

So you're a truther, too? At least you're consistent.

---

Neo-Darwinism which leads to atheism is the plague. 

Not according to the Pope.

---

No, He's not.  He is just, merciful, trustworthy, and loving.  He has a wrath though and He punishes sin.

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil

---

I read the Bible cover to cover and study it frequently.  The accusations you make are not warranted.  God allows evil to happen but He is not the author of evil, satan is.  You are just a hater of God.

And who created Satan? Who allowed a serpent in the Garden to tempt naïve humans who didn't know good from evil?

The bacteria is still bacteria and the fruit fly is still a fruit fly.

But not the same species of bacteria, and not the same species of fruit fly. You better run away from kind=species fast. Like they all do.

---

The fruit fly is still a fruit fly.  The ape is still an ape. 

And there are multiple species of each. You said a kind is a species. Were I you and aware that 'kind' as species is absurd, I would retreat to ''kind' is clade. That way, only fossils and DNA prove you wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clade

---

They are still the same genus and still the same family.

I recommend that of those two, go with genus. That will at least cut down on the real-time counter-examples.

---

Not at all.  This thread is DNA proves the existence of a Creator which I have clearly shown.  

Yeah, kind may refer to a genus.

It can refer to pretty much whatever biological classification you want, or want to make up, since it has no specific scientific meaning.

I retracted kind as a species to kind as a genus.  

I agree the Bible is heavily symbolic.  I believe the Bible is only 10 percent supernatural.  

Most scientists believe the Big Bang Theory.

Expelled is a great movie.

Scientists have an agenda against ID.  Maybe one day someone will get the Nobel with work in this field.

I will pray for you.

There is an agenda against ID.  Don't have to belong to any truth movement for that.  Although there is a system in place but that is a whole other topic.

I don't follow the pope or his claims.  I am no longer Catholic.  

That is from the KJV.  ESV translates it "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things."

God created Satan and Satan rebelled.  There was a war in heaven.  This world appears to have something to do with that war.

I said I retracted kind as a species to kind as a genus.  There is no exact scientific definition, I agree.

[Mister Agenda]

Even if Expelled were truthful, it wouldn't be a great movie. You have appallingly low standards.

[CDF47]

With new information being input into the design, it shows the Creator is still involved with the creation.  I believe the Creator is a personal Creator who wants to be involved with His creation.

Really? So you claim that your god directly interacts with reality? Is that right?

Yes

[downbeatplumb]

Really? So you claim that your god directly interacts with reality? Is that right?

Yes

Then we can test scientifically for that.
Tell us of this interaction and how it works.