DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Grand Nudger]

Everena: Bacteria does not have intelligence. It is comparable to plant life, not conscious life and there are many important distinctions. This is from an earlier post of mine when you were not here. This entire universe and everything in it is evidence of higher intelligence.

The entire universe, and everything in it, is only evidence of the universe and everything in it.  You would like to add an entity to that universe..and for that..you will require evidence of that entity, not evidence of the universe.

How and why do we have consciousness? Science doesn't know the answer to that.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, this is both untrue...and an argument from ignorance.  It demonstrates only that you don;t know something, and have plugged the meat fairy into that hole in your own understanding.

And science does not even attempt to answer any of the whys of our existence. Like why do we exist at all? Science only attempts to discover and understand how an already existing and operating universe works.

Like so many other assertions, you've been informed otherwise and simply prefer to memory hole it.

And food is evidence of God.

Don't start this again......lol.

Why do we have food for every fish, bird, insect, ... food for the approx 7.8 million different species of conscious life? Something like food being here, and being delicious and providing energy and nutrients cannot just be written off to chance or luck.

No one writes it off as chance or luck.  You are erecting a straw argument here due to your inability to directly address the subject and all of the information that has been provided to you..as you requested.

Also, it is statistically impossible for all the functions of the human body to have evolved without some intelligent force underlying it all.

Let's see the math?

Additionally, why would we even have a sex drive or a will to live? Just because of nothing and for no reason?

Another straw argument.

How would nothingness care if our species survived?

It doesn't.  

Also, we have discovered approx 200 billion different galaxies. Do you really think humans are the highest form of intelligence in 200 billion galaxies?

We may not be, but this doesn't give us any information whatsoever about meat fairies.

Add all that to a planet with a enormous amount of useful materials and resources and it becomes very evident that higher intelligence must exist.

Evident implies that there is evidence..and we've yet to see a single shred of that.  We've seen your ignorance, we've seen your inability to argue against anything other than straw of your own creation, we've seen your willful refusal to address the information you request when presented, and we;ve seen your constant reassertions.

Evidence, however...nowhere to be found. You've posted alot, you could have included some evidence in any of those posts. You could include some in your next post. It's always been up to you.

[Everena]

Everena, do you have a soulmate?

Everyone has a soulmate. 

[The Grand Nudger]

Must be some folks who share..we're not exactly distributed 50/50 or in constantly even numbers.

[Everena]

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.

Actually it could not be proven wrong tomorrow. The fact that you say that demonstrates how little you know about the current state of science. Every single major university in the entire world teaches it, and modern medicine assumes it and works on the basis of it. Any one scientist who could actually come up with an actual challenge to it, would be instantly wealthy and get a Nobel. Science is VERY competitive ... very often the competitors hate each other's guts. They would do *anything* to prove the competition wrong. There is no other theory that explains what is observed, that works as well, and YOU don't have one.

Actually it could by new findings in the field of genetics. In just one day.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really.  You may want to familiarize yourself.

[Everena]

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.

I'll be convinced when their theory no longer contains tons and tons of conjecture and speculation or if they can ever provide any observable evidence (they can't)

[The Grand Nudger]

You've already been provided with just the evidence you requested, Ev.

[Foxaèr]

I'll be convinced when their theory no longer contains tons and tons of conjecture and speculation or if they can ever provide any observable evidence (they can't)

One last time:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Catch you being disingenuous one more time.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let me ask you something, Ev.  Is it absolutely necessary to your beliefs, that evolutionary biology be wrong?

[Everena]

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.

Everena: You still believe it on your faith in men to have integrity, to not be biased to their own theory, and to not be in it for the money. I have no such faith in men and am skeptical of everything that is not observable or demonstratable.