DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

No, I sure didn't. You are nothing but a total fraud and a liar. I said they are not alive in the same sense that we and the animals are.

Actually they are not possessing a conciseness isn't really a factor .

 fungi are similiar enough to plants to be classified as plants

Accept their not 

 no matter what some idiot like you thinks and no matter what separate made up kingdom they may belong to according to biology

Ironic that you mock sciences reality based definition a substitute it for an opinion .

And the whole point was that they are not conscious life

Which is as irrelevant now as it was when you first said it .

[CDF47]

Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

You should be taking your own hints because God exists.

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

---

Facts and truth can be scary but you shouldn't avoid it. hint hint.

You should be taking your own hints because God exists.

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

---

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

---

Hey CDF47. Here is another great article from a world famous chemist 
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-...evolution/

A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars, nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. [/color]


On Professor Tour’s Website, there’s a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine – VJT):

… I will tell you as a scientist and a synthetic chemist: if anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me, because I make molecules for a living, and I don’t just buy a kit, and mix this and mix this, and get that. I mean, ab initio, I make molecules. I understand how hard it is to make molecules. I understand that if I take Nature’s tool kit, it could be much easier, because all the tools are already there, and I just mix it in the proportions, and I do it under these conditions, but ab initio is very, very hard.

Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway. When hearing such extrapolations in the academy, when will we cry out, “The emperor has no clothes!”?

…I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? … Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me.

I have no idea how or why that posted twice like that. What the heck?

---

Wow snookums. 
You seem a bit obsessed with the binary options. 
Are you as simple-minded as your questions make you appear ? You seem to *need" to be on top. 

Explain how the complexity of DNA came to be without an intelligent driving force. Tick tock.

Great article.  Thanks for sharing.

[Everena]

No, I sure didn't. You are nothing but a total fraud and a liar. I said they are not alive in the same sense that we and the animals are.

Actually they are not possessing a conciseness isn't really a factor .
Everena: It's the biggest factor that there is!

 fungi are similiar enough to plants to be classified as plants

Accept their not 
You mean except they're not?

They are closer to plants than non-conscious life is to animals. And what non-conscious life is classified as animal btw?
I know Paleophyte said it, so he can answer it too, since he said "most things classied as animals are not conscious"

[Amarok]

They should be sorry they didn't categorize them that way. It makes them look like a bunch of incompetent bumbling morons who don't know what they're doing. 

Too bad their not because the one they are using is fine 

Those of us who do not worship biologists, and just see them as regular average people, just want honest, smart science from them. 

Too bad no ones doing that and they are doing smart science as they are not basing their categories by the standards of some random person on the internet  

They keep failing at it though. My prediction is the Theory of Evolution is going to be changed so much with all the new discoveries, it will no longer even be the same theory.

No what  will happen is any new discovery will just be a new mechanism that's integrated into the already existing theory and evolution will chug alone while ID will need to resort to blogs and self published pop books till the end of time .

---

Everena: It's the biggest factor that there is!

Not even remotely

[CDF47]

928 pages in. Wow, that was pretty quick from the 500 mark to here.

[Everena]

They keep failing at it though. My prediction is the Theory of Evolution is going to be changed so much with all the new discoveries, it will no longer even be the same theory.

No what  will happen is any new discovery will just be a new mechanism that's integrated into the already existing theory and evolution will chug alone while ID will need to resort to blogs and self published pop books till the end of time .

Sorry Charlie, but that is not what the new science is telling us, or where the new science is leading us.

[CDF47]

They keep failing at it though. My prediction is the Theory of Evolution is going to be changed so much with all the new discoveries, it will no longer even be the same theory.

No what  will happen is any new discovery will just be a new mechanism that's integrated into the already existing theory and evolution will chug alone while ID will need to resort to blogs and self published pop books till the end of time .

Sorry Charlie, but that is not what the new science is telling us, or where the new science is leading us.

I think it is probably way over due that the theory of evolution gets revised.

[Amarok]

They are closer to plants than non-conscious life is to animals. And what non-conscious life is classified as animal btw? 

Accept biologically their not and and while their is yet to be animal that is considered non conscience  animality is defined by the possession of consciousness

---

They keep failing at it though. My prediction is the Theory of Evolution is going to be changed so much with all the new discoveries, it will no longer even be the same theory.

No what  will happen is any new discovery will just be a new mechanism that's integrated into the already existing theory and evolution will chug alone while ID will need to resort to blogs and self published pop books till the end of time .

Sorry Charlie, but that is not what the new science is telling us, or where the new science is leading us.

Then you have strange definition of science

---

They keep failing at it though. My prediction is the Theory of Evolution is going to be changed so much with all the new discoveries, it will no longer even be the same theory.


Sorry Charlie, but that is not what the new science is telling us, or where the new science is leading us.

I think it is probably way over due that the theory of evolution gets revised.

It has been revised but everything that makes it evolution is still there

[CDF47]

They are closer to plants than non-conscious life is to animals. And what non-conscious life is classified as animal btw? 

Accept biologically their not and and while their is yet to be animal that is considered non conscience  animality is defined by the possession of consciousness

---

They keep failing at it though. My prediction is the Theory of Evolution is going to be changed so much with all the new discoveries, it will no longer even be the same theory.


Sorry Charlie, but that is not what the new science is telling us, or where the new science is leading us.

Then you have strange definition of science

---

I think it is probably way over due that the theory of evolution gets revised.

It has been revised but everything that makes it evolution is still there

I think further revision is necessary.

[Amarok]

Accept biologically their not and and while their is yet to be animal that is considered non conscience  animality is defined by the possession of consciousness

---

Then you have strange definition of science

---

It has been revised but everything that makes it evolution is still there

I think further revision is necessary.

Nope it just fine the way it is and will continue long after the Fad of ID and it's pop science books fade into nothing .