DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

Because you have nothing. 
ID is universally regarded as pseudo-science by real scientists. 
You can't define what "complexity" is, in a meaningful way that captures what it is, and WHAT IT IS NOT. 
Repeating your unfounded faith assertions is a waste of time.

And yet, here you are, wasting it...  

I'm in class. Doing two things at once.

[Everena]

 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

Yes, it is. All you have done here is to demonstrate your ignorance of a valid genetic study and, in all probability, genetics in general. Denial on your part does not constitute a counterargument.

Denial of what? It is not proof on one species turning into an entirely different species. There is no observable evidence of it. You believe it on faith.

[Silver]

Denial of what? It is not proof on one species turning into an entirely different species. There is no observable evidence of it. You believe it on faith.

Your ignorance of evolution compares to that of the typical theist.

[Mystic]

Dear Everena, 

The argument species can't change to other species, is weak at best and proven false at worst, but a better way to prove naturalism evolution didn't take place is to show irreducible complexity in life and design as a system. Not a particular thing that can't have evolved, but over all a structure, that has many different types of it existing, but is irreducible complex by design in an abstract way. This is true of consciousness for example and it's true of other things in nature which I will not mention which because then a whole argument will ensure on exactly those things, when people don't even understand the nature of the irreducible complexity problem with respect to small changes over time and big changes over large periods of time, and the impossibility of things that are binary or irreducible complex in nature.  

Most people on these forums to me have been proven to be either people who if they understand won't accept proofs by words, not sure about live miracles, or they don't have the ability and capacity to perceive truth and logic properly. They always perceive it in the worse way possible.

If science is going to prove naturalism wrong by biology, it lies in irreducible complexity. And so far, all arguments against this has been misunderstanding of it by the so called elite evolutionist scientists who supposedly have refuted it.

But I believe species can evolve into other species. It's not a problem for me.

---

What doesn't help also is dumb people making the case for irreducible complexity by things that by nature of design are not irreducibly complex like the eye which is not irreducibly complex, but people argue that it is. And it confuses people when they are refuted scientifically.

[Angrboda]

Everena, do you have a soulmate?

She answered that question already.  She said her soulmate was god.

Talk about your long-distance relationships.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Irreducible complexity is easy to dismiss.

[Angrboda]

Dear Everena, 

The argument species can't change to other species, is weak at best and proven false at worst, but a better way to prove naturalism evolution didn't take place is to show irreducible complexity in life and design as a system. Not a particular thing that can't have evolved, but over all a structure, that has many different types of it existing, but is irreducible complex by design in an abstract way. This is true of consciousness for example and it's true of other things in nature which I will not mention which because then a whole argument will ensure on exactly those things, when people don't even understand the nature of the irreducible complexity problem with respect to small changes over time and big changes over large periods of time, and the impossibility of things that are binary or irreducible complex in nature.  

Something being what you call 'binary' doesn't show that the item or feature is irreducibly complex. This is as true of consciousness as it is of anything else. This has already been drawn to your attention, yet you persist in this nonsense, likely because you have little actual grasp of what irreducible complexity actually means. Anyway, as usual, you're simply wrong. Consciousness is not irreducibly complex. I don't know what other things you might have in mind, but I suspect you are wrong about those things as well, quite possibly for the same reason.

[Mystic]

Jo as usual, needs to just say the person is wrong. Everena, do research on that, and you will find a lot of scientific evidence and a clear intuition will unfold to seeing design in nature!

[Amarok]

Nope real research will show the opposite 

[Pat Mustard]

Dear Everena, 

The argument species can't change to other species, is weak at best and proven false at worst, but a better way to prove naturalism evolution didn't take place is to show irreducible complexity in life and design as a system. Not a particular thing that can't have evolved, but over all a structure, that has many different types of it existing, but is irreducible complex by design in an abstract way. This is true of consciousness for example and it's true of other things in nature which I will not mention which because then a whole argument will ensure on exactly those things, when people don't even understand the nature of the irreducible complexity problem with respect to small changes over time and big changes over large periods of time, and the impossibility of things that are binary or irreducible complex in nature.  

Most people on these forums to me have been proven to be either people who if they understand won't accept proofs by words, not sure about live miracles, or they don't have the ability and capacity to perceive truth and logic properly. They always perceive it in the worse way possible.

If science is going to prove naturalism wrong by biology, it lies in irreducible complexity. And so far, all arguments against this has been misunderstanding of it by the so called elite evolutionist scientists who supposedly have refuted it.

But I believe species can evolve into other species. It's not a problem for me.

---

What doesn't help also is dumb people making the case for irreducible complexity by things that by nature of design are not irreducibly complex like the eye which is not irreducibly complex, but people argue that it is. And it confuses people when they are refuted scientifically.

Irreducable complexity is a myth. Just like abraham, jesus or mahomet.