DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Valkyrie]

Forty-nine more pages, you can do it.

Pretty sure I promised something if this quagmire reached 500 pages.

[Mister Agenda]

I was asked the same question again and the answer is the same!  Scientists do not have a pathway for first DNA formation.  It takes DNA to code for proteins and DNA is locked inside a protein.  So what came first, the chicken or the egg.  DNA is a miracle.

RNA World is the pathway. You not thinking it's correct doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The fact that proteins can form without DNA was addressed in the first ten pages. What's the point of taking to you if you're just going to pretend it wasn't said if it's inconvenient for you later in the same thread?

What came first? The egg, by over 300 million years. What came before DNA? RNA. Evolution is a miracle, but your god is too tiny to include it.

---

Most species are bacteria..... then you have plants.

The verse was giving a general statement, not a scientific dissertation.

As a general statement it fails. Almost as if it was written by someone lacking knowledge that's readily available today. It doesn't work in the general. It doesn't work in the specific. It's not relevant to the conversation. It doesn't prove anything. Maybe you should stop trying to make so much of it.

---

The day will come where you will bow down and confess Jesus as Lord.

And there comes the threat. The number one reason Christians are so widely despised. Reminding myself that most of them are not like you....

---

Fuck off you miserable troll.

Your day will come as well.  You will kneel on one leg and confess out loud that Jesus is the LORD!

Confirmed troll. Time to do something about that, I'm afraid.

[Anomalocaris]

Forty-nine more pages, you can do it.

Pretty sure I promised something if this quagmire reached 500 pages.

Exceed expectation! Deliver ahead of schedule!

[Mister Agenda]

I've been waiting for this one to get to this part of his religious beliefs.  Nearly all narcissistic theists do.  It's the, "Believe as I do or you will be punished" with a side salad of, "I'm special and you're not".

Pathetic.

No, I never claimed to be special.  That is you putting words in my mouth and spinning things as you atheists arrogantly tend to do.  All I am saying is what is read in Scripture which is the word of God.  That day will arrive.

Jesus said that his followers will be known for their love. By that criteria, I conclude that you're not actually a follower of Jesus. Far from it.

[The Valkyrie]

Pretty sure I promised something if this quagmire reached 500 pages.

Exceed expectation! Deliver ahead of schedule!

I can't even remember what it was and I can't be bothered wading back through all the crap.

[Anomalocaris]

Exceed expectation!  Deliver ahead of schedule!

I can't even remember what it was and I can't be bothered wading back through all the crap.

Doesn’t have to be exactly what was technically promised. Any determined application of very sharp instrument will adequately express the thought and convey the spirit.

[CDF47]

Despite all the proof and evidence of a Creator you still choose to be willfully blind to the notion.  Unreal.

That's because there is no proof and the evidence is unconvincing. That is why ID was dismissed in a court of law, where the concept of "evidence" is very much adhered to.

After we die I believe we have bodies.

Good for you.
But that's not what Christian philosophers affirm. I've told you time and time again to read up on philosophy. Have you even begun?

Also, one of the definitions for confess is declare (one's religious faith).

See just by trying to act smart you learned so much from your flaws.

Keep learning!

confess (v.)

late 14c., transitive and intransitive, "make avowal or admission of" (a fault, crime, sin, debt, etc.), from Old French confesser (transitive and intransitive), from Vulgar Latin *confessare, a frequentative form from Latin confess-, past participle stem of confiteri "to acknowledge," from assimilated form of com "together" (see con-) + fateri "to admit," akin to fari "speak," from PIE root *bha- (2) "to speak, tell, say."

Its original religious sense was in reference to one who avows his religion in spite of persecution or danger but does not suffer martyrdom (compare confessor). Old French confesser thus had also a figurative sense of "to harm, hurt, make suffer." Related: Confessed; confessing. An Old English word for it was andettan.

Where's the persecution or danger in your scenario?

That court case was just BS and should have never happened.

I read and study the Bible.  I studied enough philosophy in college.

The word confess is as I defined.  You can find it used this way in the Bible and in the dictionary.

---

---

Source?

I'm not sure of the "source" of your willful ignorance.  However, your posts in this thread provide ample evidence that you are deeply infected with it.

You can take action which will mitigate the infection.  For example, research which species have circulatory systems which transport oxygen carrying molecules to provide oxygen to the organism's cells.  Identify the Kingdoms, Phylums,  Classes, Orders, Families, Genera and/or Species that do not.  Then do the math.  Easy Peasy.

Of course, these data are not available from the Bible or the creationist whore websites to which you are addicted.

Oh big deal, I wasn't exactly sure what you were talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

You;re right, it never should have happened.  People who believe in pixies should have never been so stupid as to try and inject their fantasies into textbooks.  It was always going to end badly for pixies.

Just as this thread has gone poorly for you. Should you have known better? Perhaps this thread never should have happened?

[CDF47]

And, so they noticed that people who lost blood died.. hell they killed their sacrifices that way by bleeding them to death.  I suspect all tribes and nations on earth at time knew the relationship between loosing blood and death.

It's really fucking stupid to make that a quote for D.N.A. or anything more that a sensible look at the time period tells us.

No, dude, it's stating that life is in the blood which is true, regardless of what the verse is about.

It could just as easily said life is in the brain, or the heart .... It really is no reason to think that it's an inspired word from a god. In fact if it were an intelligent being it would have been more specific in it's inspired writings.

To state what is obvious even to the most ignorant person around around at the time (we need blood to live) and then call it inspired is what is fucking stupid.

I was answering a question.  Someone asked where it states that in the Bible and I pointed it out to help them.

---

Despite all the proof and evidence of a Creator you still choose to be willfully blind to the notion.  Unreal.

After we die I believe we have bodies.

Also, one of the definitions for confess is declare (one's religious faith).

See just by trying to act smart you learned so much from your flaws.

What is unreal is a person born 150 years after Darwin and allegedly exposed to modern science can still be so beholden to Iron Age flimflam that he could present its doggerel as “evidence” while utterly oblivious to the possibility of total contradiction from modern science, and could even grow indignant when he is pointed out to be the gullible ignorant moron he is.

What is unreal is a person born 150 years after Darwin still clinging on to the absurd parts of neo-Darwinism.

---

No, I never claimed to be special.  That is you putting words in my mouth and spinning things as you atheists arrogantly tend to do.  All I am saying is what is read in Scripture which is the word of God.  That day will arrive.

Jesus said that his followers will be known for their love. By that criteria, I conclude that you're not actually a follower of Jesus. Far from it.

I am too.  He didn't say you always need to be nice to atheists.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know the bit of biology you;re having a hissy fit over had nothing to do with darwin...right?  That was the work of one gregor mendel...a catholic monk. Darwin died having no idea how it was that organisms came to have the traits of their parents...he could show that they did....and despite being mendels contemporary (and mendel knowing all about his work - and never mentioning that it was a problem for the god of cathol in his laboriously margin-scrbbled copy of origin)..he never knew how.

Let;s have some fun. Is there something that you would take issue with in the statement that an organism with a survival advantage is likely to have more children than the one without that advantage? Can you identify what part of darwinism or neo-darwinism rustles your jimmies, exactly?

For extra credit..do you think that god magically speciated a finch just to make darwin look right, more than a hundred years after the fact of his speculation?