DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Everena]

Everena: Wrong. They have never proven that consciousness emerges from the brain. If you read the link, it explains that their theory accomodates both spiritual approaches and materialist thought.

From the article: "The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."[/u]  
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

All delusional people INTERPRET their experiences in a deluded way. You are clearly delusional.
The article says "DERIVED" ... it NEVER says "received".
Your continued LYING is not helping you.

You should be more careful whom you decide to quote, sweetie.

" Penrose states, "I'm not a believer myself. I don't believe in established religions of any kind. I would say I'm an atheist",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Hameroff "Penrose and I suggest that consciousness involves processes at deeper levels, specifically sequences of quantum computations (~40 per second) in structures called microtubules inside brain neurons"

THAT, Lying Everena, is STILL a physical basis in the PHYSICAL BRAIN, from which they say consciousness EMERGES.

Penrose WAS an atheist at one time. And did you miss this part? Watch the video
Additionally, Hameroff has hypothesized from the very beginning, that the brain is merely a receiver of consciousness and the quantum vibrations in the microtubules are being received from outside the body somehow. There are like a million videos of him talking about it on you tube. Here is one that I found in like 2 seconds.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkedayxjWvg

[Angrboda]

Everena: Wrong. They have never proven that consciousness emerges from the brain. If you read the link, it explains that their theory accomodates both spiritual approaches and materialist thought.

From the article: "The origin of consciousness reflects our place in the universe, the nature of our existence. Did consciousness evolve from complex computations among brain neurons, as most scientists assert? Or has consciousness, in some sense, been here all along, as spiritual approaches maintain?" ask Hameroff and Penrose in the current review. "This opens a potential Pandora's Box, but our theory accommodates both these views, suggesting consciousness derives from quantum vibrations in microtubules, protein polymers inside brain neurons, which both govern neuronal and synaptic function, and connect brain processes to self-organizing processes in the fine scale, 'proto-conscious' quantum structure of reality."[/u]  
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-...rates.html

All delusional people INTERPRET their experiences in a deluded way. You are clearly delusional.
The article says "DERIVED" ... it NEVER says "received".
Your continued LYING is not helping you.

You should be more careful whom you decide to quote, sweetie.

" Penrose states, "I'm not a believer myself. I don't believe in established religions of any kind. I would say I'm an atheist",
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Hameroff "Penrose and I suggest that consciousness involves processes at deeper levels, specifically sequences of quantum computations (~40 per second) in structures called microtubules inside brain neurons"

THAT, Lying Everena, is STILL a physical basis in the PHYSICAL BRAIN, from which they say consciousness EMERGES.

Penrose WAS an atheist at one time. And did you miss this part? Watch the video
Additionally, Hameroff has hypothesized from the very beginning, that the brain is merely a receiver of consciousness and the quantum vibrations in the microtubules are being received from outside the body somehow. There are like a million videos of him talking about it on you tube. Here is one that I found in like 2 seconds.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkedayxjWvg

I think it's the flux capacitor myself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Everena: You told us earlier that you didn't believe that, that your meat fairy made this planet and this life out of preexisting material.  Get your story straight.  An intelligently designed liar wouldn't be so incompetent.  
Everena: God aka higher intelligence did create this universe with pre-existing materials. My story is straight. You just have some issues with reading comprehension.
Christ almighty, you mean it's not just yours?  Sounds like the meat fairy really fucked the pooch, then.

Everena: Sounds more like people fucked themselves.

Yet another thing, then..just like dicks donuts and dayquil..that we don't need a meat fairy to explain. Similarly, I don't actually think that the meat fairy made you simpleton. You did that to yourself.

[Everena]

Everena: No, no and no. We know what we experienced and you have no clue what anyone else has experienced so stop pretending that you do. 

And yes, delusions are common with Bipolar Disorder 1

My reading, as well as my experience, tells me that delusions are a feature of psychotic episodes in Bipolar I, not a regular feature of having the disorder, as in schizoaffective disorder and schizophrenia.  A glance tells me that hallucinations aren't uncommon either.  Perhaps the unfamiliarity is what enabled your sister  to differentiate them.  And I've already been through the "you have no clue what anyone else has experienced" argument before, so why don't you stop pretending that it hasn't already been dealt with.  As noted before, the claim is self-refuting and even if it were true, it's not necessary for me to know what you experienced for me to infer that your conclusions about your experiences are irrational and not to be trusted.  Apparently you don't learn from experience.  A fact which explains many things.

Blah Blah Blah. Apparently you don't get it. You are no expert on anything, including what anyone else in the world has experienced. Stop pretending you are. Save it for your atheist friends. Believers will never listen to one unfounded, ignorant thing you have to say about WE have experienced.

[The Grand Nudger]

If believers listened more and asserted less then the things they asserted might be more well informed.  Give it a try.

[LadyForCamus]

This one time at band camp...

[downbeatplumb]

Theists are the ones that appeal to magic. We look for a naturalistic answer to the origins of the universe.

And I would like to remind you that no supernatural answer has ever, in the history of the world, been found to actually be an answer to anything when properly investigated.

Everena: Wrong. We believe higher intelligence was involved in the creation of this universe. You are the ones who require magic as your explanation. Define "natural" in that context.

Show your work.

How did the magic man do its stuff?
Where did it get the stuff to do the creating?
Where was it while it planned the creating?
Where is the evidence that supports all of the above?

Saying magic man dun it slapping your hands and claiming victory is just laughable.

Especially when there are rival ideas for the creation.

Some with evidence some just speculation at the moment but. The higher intelligence is not only not the only idea on the table but by far the least one.

[Bucky Ball]

Neither Penrose nor Hameroff are Neuro-scientists. Sorry ... another fallacy. They are not authorities in Neuro-science.
Penrose (while highly respected in math and physics) has always dabbled in "consciousness".
The Phys.org article says DERIVED, not received, and there is no evidence for "received".
Developmental psychology knows all about the human STEPS infants and children LEARN, in which they BECOME conscious.
There is no "point" at which something is "received" .... it develops.

Too bad Woo Princess lost again.

Edit : BTW, the thing Penrose is most famous for, is his book "Cycles of Time", in which he proposes the universe had no beginning, just expands and contracts ... infinitely ... so Woo Princess' point about the universe needing a creator ... the person she uses here, Roger Penrose, is in basic disagreement over. Oh well. But to get an education before one starts using experts that refute your points.

Penrose is STILL an atheist. He is a "Distinguished Supporter" of the British Humanist Association who describes himself as having "no religious beliefs,"

[Amarok]

Everena: Wrong. We believe higher intelligence was involved in the creation of this universe. You are the ones who require magic as your explanation. Define "natural" in that context.

Show your work.

How did the magic man do its stuff?
Where did it get the stuff to do the creating?
Where was it while it planned the creating?
Where is the evidence that supports all of the above?

Saying magic man dun it slapping your hands and claiming victory is just laughable.

Especially when there are rival ideas for the creation.

Some with evidence some just speculation at the moment but. The higher intelligence is not only not the only idea on the table but by far the least one.

And calling physics , Chemistry and  biology magic  

---

Everena: Wrong. We believe higher intelligence was involved in the creation of this universe. You are the ones who require magic as your explanation. Define "natural" in that context.

Show your work.

How did the magic man do its stuff?
Where did it get the stuff to do the creating?
Where was it while it planned the creating?
Where is the evidence that supports all of the above?

Saying magic man dun it slapping your hands and claiming victory is just laughable.

Especially when there are rival ideas for the creation.

Some with evidence some just speculation at the moment but. The higher intelligence is not only not the only idea on the table but by far the least one.

It's not really even on the table it's the dog bowl

[Bucky Ball]

You are the ones who require magic as your explanation.

No one claims "magic" as an explanation of anything.
Woo Princess has no education in physics and chemistry ... thus invokes "magic" as that's all she understands.