DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Exactly, you're not helping.  You can point to no example of irreducible complexity, and yet imagine that this is a way to "prove naturalism evolution did not take place".

Even this is a misunderstanding on your part.  GMO crops are -already- the unmistakable product of genetic engineering.  Their existence does not threaten modern synth or naturalism, and in point of fact their creation was made possible by an understanding of modern synth, in concert with wholly natural means, by a decidedly natural agent.  

If we were living in an alternate universe in which we, like a gmo crop, were the unmistakable product of genetic engineering..it would no more suggest that fairies were real in that universe than the existence of gmo crops does in this one.

[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.

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

Mythology that is true then, is what you mean.

[Everena]

Everena: Whatever male dominated evol biology is selling today, you're all buying it. I wish you all luck. Gotta go work now. Ta Ta

No, dear.

We accept testable, repeatable, verified facts that have been proven time and time again by reputable scientists from that field of study, not unsubstantiated claims from unqualified clowns who don't understand and open LIE about the scientific field while holding and quoting from a discredited, contradictory, book of fairy tales.

And you have previously used the quote function correctly, so this deliberate misuse of it is showing more and more that you're trolling us.

Have a good day at work.  If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now.  Yes, I DO want fries with that.

Evolution is not fact. It is a theory that is full of tons of conjecture and speculation. It could proven wrong tomorrow with one new discovery. You simply believe it on your faith in men.

---

Everena: Oh sweetie, are you sad that I am right again and you are wrong again? Why don't you go snuggle up with a plant and maybe you'll feel better.

---

Everena: I did already stated it earlier, before anyone posted anything. All they have is some plants and germs. Sorry, not convinced.

So...demonstrating that speciation occurs isn’t enough to convince you that speciation can occur, lol?  That’s weird.

It is not observable proof that one species turns into an entirely different species. It is adaption and that is all until proven otherwise.

[Foxaèr]

Evolution is not fact. It is a theory that is full of tons of conjecture and speculation. It could proven wrong tomorrow with one new discovery. You simply believe it on your faith in men.

I know for a fact that it has already been explained to you the difference between a theory and a scientific theory.

Don't make me report you for your continuing ignorance.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's a misconception that many religious people have, sure.  There is, however, a fact of evolution (many, if we're being pedantic).  The theory, modern synth, is what we leverage to explain those facts of evolution. It is the most well evidenced theory we have. It is more well evidenced...than the theory of gravity.

[no one]

purplenose:
Everena, do you have a soulmate?

Otter Van Kitkaboodle IV:
She answered that question already.  She said her soulmate was god.

[Everena]

Antheraea oculea is a subspecies of Antheraea polyphemus. These giant Saturniid silk moths have overlapping geographical ranges and limited ability to interbreed. Fertility studies between the two confirm that oculea is a species caught in the very act of evolving.

Source: The Wild Silk Moths of North America. Paul M. Tuskes, James P. Tuttle, Michael M. Collins: Cornell University Press (1996); Pg. 179

Oh no that's "just adaption " or she will shift the goal and demand some outlandish creationist straw man of evolution .

---

Of course she's totally clueless that their is more then one kind of such diversification

You can't prove it's not just adaption and neither can science.

[Mystic]

Dear Everena, your heart is in the right place, but your reasoning so far is not that strong. Ad-populum is weak, your way of refuting of evolution not strong, - but there is good arguments for God and arguments from scientific evidence with reasoning pointing to design. 

Equip yourself and argue by what is best, which means clear proofs, and not ambiguity or conjecture. If you argue with the latter,  it's put you on the same reliance of Atheists, they rely on conjecture.

And regarding religion, you are to assess it, and see if there is clear proofs for religion or a religion or not. Don't go this I am going to make reality and God what I wish him to be and everyone else then me is deluded type, because you will be closer to Atheists in that respect, then those who are following the truth and guidance, and building on clear proofs as foundations and keep building their path on clear signs and clear light and insights from God.

[The Valkyrie]

No, dear.

We accept testable, repeatable, verified facts that have been proven time and time again by reputable scientists from that field of study, not unsubstantiated claims from unqualified clowns who don't understand and open LIE about the scientific field while holding and quoting from a discredited, contradictory, book of fairy tales.

And you have previously used the quote function correctly, so this deliberate misuse of it is showing more and more that you're trolling us.

Have a good day at work.  If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now.  Yes, I DO want fries with that.

Evolution is not fact. It is a theory that is full of tons of conjecture and speculation. It could proven wrong tomorrow with one new discovery. You simply believe it on your faith in men.

---

So...demonstrating that speciation occurs isn’t enough to convince you that speciation can occur, lol?  That’s weird.

It is not observable proof that one species turns into an entirely different species. It is adaption and that is all until proven otherwise.

Read: "I don't understand the word theory as used in a scientific context"

[The Grand Nudger]

You can't prove it's not just adaption and neither can science.

You can address any of the examples of speciation events which have been provided to you..at any time.