DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Some could be.

How do you feel about that?  Do you justify it as being in the service of a higher good?  I personally would have some regret about that.

Have you considered keeping God but upgrading your theology?  I know people who work in real science, are ardent believers and have no problem with evolution.  I think asking kids to deny evolution is just a step or two removed from becoming the next technology avoiding quaker-esque commune.  You shouldn't have to choose between embracing the modern world and being a Christian.  I'm not asking you to do it for me; it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Just seems like a more comfortable option to me.

I accept micro-evolution and evolution as change over time but not macro-evolution.  I don't believe in common ancestry.

[Whateverist]

How do you feel about that?  Do you justify it as being in the service of a higher good?  I personally would have some regret about that.

Have you considered keeping God but upgrading your theology?  I know people who work in real science, are ardent believers and have no problem with evolution.  I think asking kids to deny evolution is just a step or two removed from becoming the next technology avoiding quaker-esque commune.  You shouldn't have to choose between embracing the modern world and being a Christian.  I'm not asking you to do it for me; it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Just seems like a more comfortable option to me.

I accept micro-evolution and evolution as change over time but not macro-evolution.  I don't believe in common ancestry.

Of course you wouldn't if you were a YEC but if you accept the age of the planet and universe as determined by the best science there would be plenty of time. But of course you are free to believe anything you like so long as you're not as attached to getting it right in terms of the best evidence as much as you are in terms of the theology you've chosen.

[Anomalocaris]

How do you feel about that?  Do you justify it as being in the service of a higher good?  I personally would have some regret about that.

Have you considered keeping God but upgrading your theology?  I know people who work in real science, are ardent believers and have no problem with evolution.  I think asking kids to deny evolution is just a step or two removed from becoming the next technology avoiding quaker-esque commune.  You shouldn't have to choose between embracing the modern world and being a Christian.  I'm not asking you to do it for me; it doesn't affect me one way or the other.  Just seems like a more comfortable option to me.

I accept micro-evolution and evolution as change over time but not macro-evolution.  I don't believe in common ancestry.

You are an even bigger idiot than just a creationist moron for stating “I don't believe” as if it could possible have any relevance.

---

Vast majority of practicing Scientists do not.   A few genuine scientists, mostly in areas of expertise other than biology, do.   But the vast majority of those who claim to be scientist for creation are demonstrable charlatans  with no credible scientific credentials and no creditable scientific accomplishments.

Engineers,  sorry to say,  don’t count because they are not in the business of finding the Underlying factual basis,but in the business of applying what has been given to them as  rules that have already been constructed by other people based on those underlying facts.

The fact that you think being seen as “technical” In the eyes of such baffoons as would populate your church suffices as qualifications suitable for issuing pronouncements on The methods and the results of basic scientific fact finding shows just how totally lacking you are in the sort of judgments expected of even the minimally scientifically literate In this day and age.

History's most famous scientists believed in a Creator as do many scientists around the world today.

That very same “history’s Most famous scientist” licked mercury and stared at the sun until it burned his retina.   His belief in creation belong that bucket of his behavior, not the bucket that led to calculus. In the 17th century, licking mercury and staring at the sun didn’t sound stupid even to the educated, nor did believe in creation. But this is the 21st century, the educated knows all three are stupid things to do.

Most of the modern “scientists” who profess to believe are huckster’s, either for taking advantage of you by pretending to have a belief similar to your idiocy, or for pretending to be a scientist to give their own idiotic believe some stolen credibility amongst morons.

[Minimalist]

I don't believe in common ancestry.

Really?

[Gwaithmir]

Almost 600 pages, and where are we at?  The same damn place we were at on page 1.:

“DNA is designed because CDF thinks it is.”

I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Please cite a peer-reviewed paper from NATURE or any other accredited science journal which supports your unlikely claim  that DNA is designed.

[Bucky Ball]

DNA proves common ancestry. 
Anyone who says they don't accept common ancestry, doesn't understand genetics or DNA, or how it is evaluated.
The VERY SAME evaluation method that is accepted by all of science and courts, all over the world. 
End of story.

[Minimalist]

You see, Buck, a silly old book written by ancient primitives tells him otherwise and he's going to stick with his fucking story regardless of facts!

[Pat Mustard]

Almost 600 pages, and where are we at?  The same damn place we were at on page 1.:

“DNA is designed because CDF thinks it is.”

I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many idiots that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Fixed your post for accuracy.

And of your "many scientists and engineers" exactly none are biologists* (in fact the closest your lot have to an expert in a relevant field is an oil company geologist). Also there are more scientists called Steve who accept evolution than who reject the evidence in favour of goddidit.

*Except Behe who literally admitted he's only in it for the money and that he's making shit up.

[Amarok]

I am not the only one that thinks it is. 

Among the ration yes you are 

 There are many idiots that believe in creation.  

Creation is idiocy 

Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Nope

---

I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Please cite a peer-reviewed paper from NATURE or any other accredited science journal which supports your unlikely claim  that DNA is designed.

Their all part of the evil conspiracy of suppressing ID 

[The Grand Nudger]

I accept micro-evolution and evolution as change over time but not macro-evolution. 

What's the difference, do you imagine...and what stops macro evolution from happening? How do you reconcile your beliefs against the fact that we have directly observed speciation in the lab and in the field many...many times?

I don't believe in common ancestry.

Do you reject the results of paternity tests as well? How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that we get our genetic material from our parents, and that because of this..the explanation for two organisms sharing dna is invariably an issue of ancestry?

Moreover, what requirement is there for you to deny basic facts of biology in order to assert your god beliefs? You've been arguing for a tinkergod for hundreds of pages..but..suddenly..you don't think that it did much in the way of tinkering? You have to appreciate how profoundly ignorant and absurdly silly this all seems, lol.