DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Paleophyte]

And people were needlessly Created malevolent by ___. <--- Hint, 3 letters. Rhymes with God.
Human malevolence doesn't preclude divine malevolence.
The worst of human malevolence never caused a natural disaster.
Thus, God is also malevolent. Where do you think we get it from?


 Everena: Only our flesh was created by God. Our souls (who we are) always have been and always will be.

Still doesn't get your "God" off the hook for natural disasters. Take volcanoes for instance. Not made by humans. I'm betting that being boiled alive by a pyroclastic flow is a pretty horrifying way to go. Or drowned by a tsunami. Or crushed my a mudslide. All "God's" fault.

Pro Tip: At this point your best bet is argue that your "Deity" is merely an incompetent bumbler.

Though really, you have to be a pretty alarming sadist to create all these horrors and then curse some innocent primate with sentience so that it might comprehend the full breadth and depth of your hatred.

[CDF47]

This was a scientific thread with religious implications.  Then I was asked religious questions which is understandable.

Hey CDF47. I found some stuff you might like to check out (if you haven't seen it already   https://evolutionnews.org/2012/07/what_are_the_to_1/



What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution?

by Dr.Casey Luskin

A few months back I gave my top three criticisms of Darwinian evolution that I think should be taught in public schools. But the problems with Darwinian evolution run much deeper. Here are my top ten problems with biological and chemical evolution:

1.Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: “The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information,” “Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum,” “Opening Darwin’s Black Box,” or “Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins“);

2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see “Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record” or “Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology“);

3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand “tree of life.” (For details, see: “A Primer on the Tree of Life“);

4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;

5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant — at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see “Convergent Genetic Evolution: ‘Surprising’ Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design” and “Dolphins and Porpoises and…Bats? Oh My! Evolution’s Convergence Problem“);

6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see “The origin of life remains a mystery” or “Problems with the Natural Chemical ‘Origin of Life’“);

7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: “Evolving views of embryology,” “A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology,” “Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution“);

8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see “Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE’s Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution” or “Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism“);

9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called “junk” DNA. (For details, ] see: “Intelligent Design and the Death of the ‘Junk-DNA’ Neo-Darwinian Paradigm,” “The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function,” or “Does Darrel Falk’s Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit ‘One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology’?);

10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).

Of course, even these “top ten” still just scratch the surface." 



And there's more. Evolution News and Science today ran a whole series on this

Welcome to the Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/the_top_ten_sci/

1. Problem

1: No Viable Mechanism to Generate a Primordial Soup
According to conventional thinking among origin of life theorists, life arose via unguided chemical reactions on the early Earth some 3 to 4 billion years ago. Most theorists believe that there were many steps involved in the origin of life, but the very first step would have involved the production of a primordial soup — a water-based sea of simple organic molecules — out of which life arose. While the existence of this “soup” has been accepted as unquestioned fact for decades, this first step in most origin-of-life theories faces numerous scientific difficulties.

In 1953, a graduate student at the University of Chicago named Stanley Miller, along with his faculty advisor Harold Urey, performed experiments hoping to produce the building blocks of life under natural conditions on the early Earth.4 These “Miller-Urey experiments” intended to simulate lightning striking the gasses in the early Earth’s atmosphere. After running the experiments and letting the chemical products sit for a period of time, Miller discovered that amino acids — the building blocks of proteins — had been produced.

For decades, these experiments have been hailed as a demonstration that the “building blocks” of life could have arisen under natural, realistic Earthlike conditions,5 corroborating the primordial soup hypothesis. However, it has also been known for decades that the Earth’s early atmosphere was fundamentally different from the gasses used by Miller and Urey.

The atmosphere used in the Miller-Urey experiments was primarily composed of reducing gasses like methane, ammonia, and high levels of hydrogen. Geochemists now believe that the atmosphere of the early Earth did not contain appreciable amounts of these components. (Reducing gasses are those which tend to donate electrons during chemical reactions.) UC Santa Cruz origin-of-life theorist David Deamer explains this in the journal Microbiology & Molecular Biology Reviews:

Likewise, an article in the journal Science stated: “Miller and Urey relied on a ‘reducing’ atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms. As Miller showed later, he could not make organics in an ‘oxidizing’ atmosphere.”7 The article put it bluntly: “the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey situation.”8 Consistent with this, geological studies have not uncovered evidence that a primordial soup once existed.

There are good reasons to understand why the Earth’s early atmosphere did not contain high concentrations of methane, ammonia, or other reducing gasses. The earth’s early atmosphere is thought to have been produced by outgassing from volcanoes, and the composition of those volcanic gasses is related to the chemical properties of the Earth’s inner mantle. Geochemical studies have found that the chemical properties of the Earth’s mantle would have been the same in the past as they are today.10 But today, volcanic gasses do not contain methane or ammonia, and are not reducing.

A paper in Earth and Planetary Science Letters found that the chemical properties of the Earth’s interior have been essentially constant over Earth’s history, leading to the conclusion that “Life may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms.”11 So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis of life’s building blocks that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended that origin of life investigators undertake a “reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth.”12

Because of these difficulties, some leading theorists have abandoned the Miller-Urey experiment and the “primordial soup” theory it is claimed to support. In 2010, University College London biochemist Nick Lane stated the primordial soup theory “doesn’t hold water” and is “past its expiration date.”13 Instead, he proposes that life arose in undersea hydrothermal vents. But both the hydrothermal vent and primordial soup hypotheses face another major problem.

Chemical Evolution Is Dead in the Water
Assume for a moment that there was some way to produce simple organic molecules on the early Earth. Perhaps they did form a “primordial soup,” or perhaps these molecules arose near some hydrothermal vent. Either way, origin of life theorists must then explain how amino acids or other key organic molecules linked up to form long chains (polymers) like proteins (or RNA).

Chemically speaking, however, the last place you’d want to link amino acids into chains would be a vast water-based environment like the “primordial soup” or underwater near a hydrothermal vent. As the National Academy of Sciences acknowledges, “Two amino acids do not spontaneously join in water. Rather, the opposite reaction is thermodynamically favored.”14 In other words, water breaks protein chains back down into amino acids (or other constituents), making it very difficult to produce proteins (or other polymers) in the primordial soup.

Materialists lack good explanations for these first, simple steps which are necessary to the origin-of-life. Chemical evolution is literally dead in the water."

Everena: So that is just number one in the second series. You can check out the whole series on this at 

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...hp/id/1551

---

@Everena:

Here's more on food in nature:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain

Here's how sexual reproduction evolved:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...production

Ridiculous. The question is why would food exist on this planet at all? Not, what is food? 
And the question is why and how would nothing care if our species survived? Evolution is not a first cause of anything. It is a just a process that occured after LIFE itself had already began.

Thanks Everena.  I read the link and saved to my PC.  Great information.

[Nay_Sayer]

Well gee CD appears, small world.

[Amarok]

 Dr.Casey Luskin

[Deesse23]

Paleophyte:
God needlessly created suffering.
God is malevolent.

Everena: Only atheists believe in death. We believe in eternal life.

Changing the subject doesnt equal an answer (subject: suffering. Answer: death). Even if we never died, Paleos statement wouldnt have been refuted. We would be able to eternally suffer which is.......hmmm...even worse than temporal, needless suffering?

You just made his argument stronger for him.

[Cod]

Food is living organisms. Species that require food are also living organisms. All living organisms are the result of evolution. That some species feed on others is the result evolution, environment and adaptation. Got it yet?

I said no more strawman arguments. You did not answer the question I asked. Get that yet?

---

Fact: All species of beetles are edible.

And that is just more proof that Higher intelligence was involved in the creation of our planet. Animals that die are even food for us in case we need it to stay alive.

I suppose she's going to tell us that the creator strategically placed Bamboo shoots for the Pandas, and Eucalyptus leaves for the Koalas next..
Funny how the specialized diets of certain animals match up exactly with their environment isn't it.. More proof of a creator?

All this knowledge the creator possesses, even down to what a Koala might fancy for lunch, isn't he amazing. Even more amazing though, is the creator who created the creator, just imagine that beings intelligence.. Unless of course there is a One and Only creator.

[CDF47]

Propaganda.

Here's a great article about why it looks like they are wrong about Natural Selection. 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010...enes-wrong

And here's their side claiming they may have to alter the theory evolution a bit because of all these new findings.

https://www.livescience.com/37158-epigen...ction.html

Thanks.  Good information!

---

This was a scientific thread with religious implications.  Then I was asked religious questions which is understandable.

Pastfarian are atheists and I am not the least bit dumb. I am sure than I far more intelligent and well educated than you are.

One; BZZZZ Wrong, However, I am not surprised a simpleton like yourself/CD cannot grasp the light, love and ultimate truth FSM brings.

Two; Getting 4 words spelled right on your Speak & Spell is hardly an education, I digress.

Three; Since we can make baseless broad assessments of faith, All jesus followers steal from charity jars and set forest fires.

RAmen.

Do you secretly worship RA?  You write RAmen.  Are you cheating on FSM?

---

This was a scientific thread with religious implications.  Then I was asked religious questions which is understandable.

No, twins that evolved into bacteria. : WTF did you get twins from?!?

Maybe she watched Basket Case too many times, Or that Devito/Schwarzenegger movie.

ETA oddest thing CDF47 being absent too for all this, Odd indeed.

I'm here.  Trying to keep up with all the posts.

---

Well gee CD appears, small world.

That's right.  I am back.

[Amarok]

So more of her pop science bullocks that she has not even read

[pocaracas]

Do you secretly worship RA?  You write RAmen.  Are you cheating on FSM?

Here's Ramen:



You should try it. Any decent Japanese place should have it.
There is the risk that you might convert and become an FSM worshiper...

[Cod]

@ Everina (or whatever your name is)… With the designer in mind, are you familiar with the Irish potato famine?
What had the designer got against the Irish. The bastard.