(May 14, 2018 at 3:03 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 2:56 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Why can nobody detect and measure that?

His proof is in the creation, his signature is in the body and cells of living creatures and the construct of the super-symmetrical universe.

Nope, answer the question asked. Does your god interact with the real world today? Yes or no?

(May 14, 2018 at 3:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 3:03 pm)CDF47 Wrote: His proof is in the creation, his signature is in the body and cells of living creatures and the construct of the super-symmetrical universe.

Nope, answer the question asked. Does your god interact with the real world today? Yes or no?

Yes.

CDF47 Wrote:Below is information on DNA spell checkers:

https://research.cornell.edu/news-featur...l-checkers

This is no fallacy.  You are living a lie.  You are in denial.

The fallacies weren't to do with the existence of 'spell checkers'. The fallacies were in the ways you drew conclusions from their existence. Would you please stop linking shit that shows how complicated DNA is? We all know it's complicated, and there isn't a magic degree of complication that will make us go 'you know what, he's right, it MUST have been designed, because only a designer could account for something being so complicated!' We think natural processes can account for it, just as they've accounted for everything else we've ever found the cause for. You say they can't because they're 'dumb', yet we know that what you call 'dumb natural processes' can result in high complexity, and in many cases we understand exactly how they do it. To prove that is not what's happening in this case as well, you need more than 'it's so complicated!'. You need to demonstrate what it is that keeps natural processes from developing something like DNA, given organic chemistry, simpler predecessors, the right conditions, and hundreds of millions of years.

(May 14, 2018 at 3:35 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 3:30 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: If it was sequence alone that was important, you could do the same thing with different chemicals, but you can't. If it was sequence that was important, you wouldn't have so much repetition just because certain of the components of DNA are necessary to keep the strands chemically stable, making it less efficient at memory storage than it would be if a qualified human had designed it.

And organic chemistry is far more complicated than relatively simple inorganic chemistry.

---

Again, mere assertion, dismissed as such.

---

Except for the middle part where you explain why the conclusion must follow.

It is the sequence of the nucleotide bases that determines the sequence of the amino acid chains.

ORLY? Explain the 74 amino acids found in the Murchison meteorite.

CDF47 Wrote:

Tizheruk Wrote:Appeal to consequences


Argument from emotion . 

Yest more fallacies 

I heard one story of a high school kid who read a book from Michael Shermer I believe.  It was found under his bed after he shot himself in the head after completing the book.  He was a young high school kid so he did not have the intelligence to argue back against the atheist arguments in the book and he took his own life over it.  What a shame when some basic knowledge of DNA could have cleared this all up for him and possibly saved his life.

Care to estimate how many times a suicide in America has been found with a Bible in the room?

---

CDF47 Wrote:

Tizheruk Wrote:I'm calling bullocks on this . It doesn't even make any sense .

True story I heard on a youtube video by a scientist.

Well, if you heard a story, it must be true, eh?

(May 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

CDF47 Wrote:Below is information on DNA spell checkers:

https://research.cornell.edu/news-featur...l-checkers

This is no fallacy.  You are living a lie.  You are in denial.

The fallacies weren't to do with the existence of 'spell checkers'. The fallacies were in the ways you drew conclusions from their existence. Would you please stop linking shit that shows how complicated DNA is? We all know it's complicated, and there isn't a magic degree of complication that will make us go 'you know what, he's right, it MUST have been designed, because only a designer could account for something being so complicated!' We think natural processes can account for it, just as they've accounted for everything else we've ever found the cause for. You say they can't because they're 'dumb', yet we know that what you call 'dumb natural processes' can result in high complexity, and in many cases we understand exactly how they do it. To prove that is not what's happening in this case as well, you need more than 'it's so complicated!'. You need to demonstrate what it is that keeps natural processes from developing something like DNA, given organic chemistry, simpler predecessors, the right conditions, and hundreds of millions of years.

You will not be able to prove that in a million years.  Going from dumb in-organic to super-sophisticated DNA is not going to happen.

(May 14, 2018 at 3:37 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 3:36 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Nope, answer the question asked. Does your god interact with the real world today? Yes or no?

Yes.

If true, then your god's interactions must perforce be measurable and testable, right?

(May 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 3:35 pm)CDF47 Wrote: It is the sequence of the nucleotide bases that determines the sequence of the amino acid chains.

ORLY? Explain the 74 amino acids found in the Murchison meteorite.

Not familiar with that.

CDF47 Wrote:Don't want to talk about DNA spell checkers?  Is that to far down the design evidence for you?

Nope, they're not miraculously more compelling of acceptance of ID than other parts of DNA. It's a waste of time for you to keep linking amazing new factoids about DNA. That's not what will convince us. To have a chance of convincing us, you have to do better than this:

1. DNA is amazingly complex!
2. Nothing.
3. Therefore it must have been consciously designed!

The middle part is important. It's the part where you tell us WHY something being so complex means it must have been designed. Complexity isn't even a criteria for human design, almost everything we design is orders of magnitude less complex that what is found in nature.

(May 14, 2018 at 3:42 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 14, 2018 at 3:37 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Yes.

If true, then your god's interactions must perforce be measurable and testable, right?

Maybe.