DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Astreja]

No, I don't think manually selecting messages is the way to go.  Perhaps we should just start a new DNA thread and walk away run screaming in abject terror from this one.

[Angrboda]

[Joods]

I'm not clueless about anything. I have never one time shifted the goal, nor can you provide any example of that outright lie you just stated about me.

 And what I have to say about the post is, first, I appreciate you finding and posting that for me. However, it is not evidence of one species turning into an entirely different species and all anyone can produce is plants and a germ and I do not find that convincing

 I told them that from the get go, that all they would find as evidence was plants, and a germ and tons of proof of adaption, but they still insisted that what plants are doing is direct evidence that every species on earth has turned into an entirely different species and if I do not happen to agree with them about that and immediately accept it as fact then I am just a stupid creationist who does not understand science.

So again, you’re going to need to explain, with evidence, why some forms of life can speciate (as has been demonstrated to you in this thread) and some can’t.  Please provide citations to show your work.

Pieces of shit usually can't handle such a monumental task. You're better off asking Santa.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Everena. Where is your god physically located? You know, the big ball of energy that's in space somewhere.

[no one]

Hogwarts Mathilda, Hogwarts.

[Mister Agenda]

[quote='Mister Agenda' pid='1847905' dateline='1542117965']

I'm not familiar with any terms that aren't human-made.

Plumbing does not explain the first cause of water, because what the first cause of water was is irrelevant to plumbing. What the first cause of anything is other than species is also irrelevant to evolution, which explains what is happening to populations of organisms once they exist. Ev: No kidding. Stop pretending it has anything to do with the first cause of anything.

How could the planet have less food than is needed for all the life on it to survive? Ev: How could it? Without higher intelligence is how it couldn't.

If life exceeds the available food supply, it dies, or in some cases, goes dormant.

I appreciate that you don't reject the findings of science though, not as common as it should be.

First bolded statement: Who's pretending it does? Not the skeptics around here. Do you mean to be chiding creationists?

Second bolded statement: This is a completely unsupported assertion. Whereas that there literally can't be more life than there is sufficient food for is tautological.

[The Valkyrie]

Good idea let's see if the mods agree .

To split a thread this size? I would prefer to slam my balls on my cars door repeatedly.

Can I help?

[Mister Agenda]

Is it just me... Or is this too hard to follow? Not reading.

If you think so, then why don't you tell me about a better way to do it. I have only been on here for 3 days and am trying to get some work done at the same time.

This post was a good example of how to do it correctly. You're getting it. It is kind of tricky, especially if you're distracted.

---

This one is also very very angry.  I should probably review the Everena Casserole recipe to include a large dose of anger.

I am laughing, not angry. Do not pretend you know me or any of my emotions. You know nothing about me or any other believer and your foolish stereotypes make you look like a bunch of morons. If you want people to take you seriously, learn to have normal human adult discussions instead of acting like a bunch of angry, insulting, bullyish hateful children who refuse to use any logic. You just come off as defiant, mean, and immature, and never thoughtful, interesting or intelligent.

We can only base our assessment of your emotions on what you post. It is literally all we have to go on, and it is reasonable for us to do so. You are responsible for the impression your posts give, as I am for the impression my posts give. I would like to see more posts from you that give the impression that you are thoughtful, interesting, or intelligent. It might help to refuse to answer posts that you don't think are respectful to you. There is no requirement that you answer every post, not even if the other person demands it. And welcome to the forum.

[Everena]

Everena: Well that is interesting stuff, but not proof really. Just a hypothesis. Maybe the water was more shallow and they needed legs at one time to walk through some it. The point is, we don't know. What amazes me about atheists is that you are willing to believe any guess from science and worship these people like they are your God. However you refuse to appy simply logic and realize that higher intelligence was necessary for this universe and all conscious life to come to be. I mean why do we have legs? Eyes, nose, ears, arms, fingers. Pretty handy stuff....

Well, the standard explanation is that whales evolved from land mammals, hence the vestigial leg bones.

So next specific question:

Why is the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve from the brain to the larynx not a straight path, but follows an unnecessarily long-winded path that can only be explained by large-scale evolution?

Everena: I read the findings about the whale and what they think it means. It's a straight up guess. My guess is just as good.
That's funny you brought up laryngeal nerve 
The old argument used to be- Why do we have an appendix? Now we know the appendix stores good bacteria and repopulates the digestive system after an illness in order to keep us healthy. 
As for the recurrent laryngeal nerve, I'm sure we will discover that there is actually a good reason for the path it takes at some point in the future. There are of course already numerous papers from doctors on the web explaining  why the design is actually better.  Here's an article discussing both sides of this argument    https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_re...al_nerve_/

[CDF47]

Well, the standard explanation is that whales evolved from land mammals, hence the vestigial leg bones.

So next specific question:

Why is the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve from the brain to the larynx not a straight path, but follows an unnecessarily long-winded path that can only be explained by large-scale evolution?

Everena: I read the findings about the whale and what they think it means. It's a straight up guess. My guess is just as good.
That's funny you brought up laryngeal nerve 
The old argument used to be- Why do we have an appendix? Now we know the appendix stores good bacteria and repopulates the digestive system after an illness in order to keep us healthy. 
As for the recurrent laryngeal nerve, I'm sure we will discover that there is actually a good reason for the path it takes at some point in the future. There are of course already numerous papers from doctors on the web explaining  why the design is actually better.  Here's an article discussing both sides of this argument    https://evolutionnews.org/2010/10/the_re...al_nerve_/

It could be that it is just the way it fits in relation to other subsystems located there.