DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Grand Nudger]

I blame their parents and other assorted figures of authority in their lives.  We're all compelled to trust what these people tell us.  The truth of the propositions inevitably get wrapped up in our appraisals and attachments of the people themselves...and also of our own person.

I don;t understand things, therefore god.

My preacher told me that science was wrong and I trust him

I couldn;t be so stupid that I don;t understand a real thing, therefore evolution is false.

My daddy would never lie to me about god!

[Abaddon_ire]

DNA has a property that cannot be explained by natural processes.  Locked securely inside the double helix structure of DNA is a wealth of information in the form of precisely sequenced chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G.  In a written language information is communicated by a precise arrangement of letters.  In the same way, the instruction necessary to assemble amino acids into proteins are conveyed by the sequences of chemicals arranged along the spine of the DNA.  This chemical code has been called the “Language of Life” and it is the most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the known universe.

Which one? allah? Jahweh? Thor? Vishnu?

[The Grand Nudger]

Discordia, obviously. 

[Angrboda]

DNA is not just complex.  It is highly sophisticated.  It is both extremely complex and precisely specific.  There is no such thing as junk DNA anymore.  It turns out that what was called junk DNA actually acts like a computer operating system.  At least 85 percent of DNA performs these functions and 3 percent perform coding based on the latest figures I heard.  It is now called non-coding DNA.  I would post a link but I am not allowed but there is plenty of information about it on the Internet.

[Minimalist]

https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philos...ode47.html

The single greatest flaw in the ID argument is that it has as an unstated premise the axiom that only intelligence has the capability of creating things that are very unlikely. Subject to the usual scientific axioms, this is just not true. Mathematics, physics, chemistry, biochemstry, psychology - we learn over and over again of processes that can spontaneously self-organize into complex structures, and we have long since learned and experimentally validated the model which almost certainly put the damn watch into the desert, the model of Evolution.
Evolution is amazing. If the ID folks weren't all hung up on trying to salvage Christianity from the ruin of its mythology (which is their fairly transparent agenda, after all) they could perfectly reasonably argue thus: I believe that God exists, not as a rational conclusion beyond all doubt or some sort of scientific argument but because I exist as an experiential existential truth, and that's a miracle. Evolution is a miracle. The laws of physics are a miracle13.38. Every watch, or eye, that exists is a friggin' miracle because it self-assembled out of stardust, some of which came together in just the right way to stand up and walk around and eventually sit down and type these words, seeing them with stardust eyes and peering occasionally at a stardust watch to see if it is time for bed yet as it writes.
ID as a pseudoscientific conclusion is based on a complete lack of understanding of infinity and likelihood and science itself.

I'm not going to get attached to this one.  I predict a short shelf-life!

[Ravenshire]

You've already contradicted yourself right there. If this mind transcends the universe then we cannot have evidence of it and the proof can't be within its natural creation but must instead be outside of it where we literally can't possibly detect it.

Whenever the natural world can't be explained naturally that just means we don't know the explanation yet. Postulating the existence of something outside of our experience explains absolutely nothing. It just leaves us with even more to explain.

And you're begging the question by referring to the natural world as "the creation" as you're already assuming it was created before you've even provided an argument that it was.

Evidence is beyond your reach because you're talking about something non-empirical.

As a theist all you've got left is arguments... and so far it's just been thousands of years of logical failures and fallacies on the theist's part.

I believe the transcendent intelligence interacts with the creation.

By what process?

[Whateverist]

A mind that transcends this universe created it.  The proof is in the creation, in the fine-tuning of the universe and in the information in DNA to the molecular machines in the cell.

Sigh. You're assuming creation (which is what you, presumably, want to prove). The apparent fine-tuning of the universe hasn't been established to be actual fine tuning, it presumes the cosmological constants could have varied in ways that we haven't established and that there is only one cosmos, which we also can't know at this time. The 'information' in DNA being the product of a mind is what you ought to be trying to establish, instead of just repeating it over and over as if you already have.

So true. He doesn't say it but I think these must be a few of the unstated links in his reasoning:

Any adequately satisfyingly complete theory of the origins of life must completely explain it.
If an unimaginably powerful agency beyond our comprehension had brought about life that would completely explain it.
It is necessary to have an adequately satisfying theory of origins.
If it is necessary to infer an unimaginably powerful agency in order to obtain a satisfying theory, then such an agency is also necessary.
Therefore such an agency exists .. and look! What we're looking for just happens to be found in the bible.
Case closed.
QED
Hurrah for us!

[I_am_not_mafia]

How could nothing create everything?

How did you establish that there ever was nothing?

Exactly. After the Big Bang there was only energy. Matter came afterwards. We know that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. There is no reason to suggest that it ever was created in the past. And if it was, what was it created from? Nothing? The much simpler explanation is that the energy of the universe has always existed.

Therefore there is no need for a creator.

[CDF47]

In my religious belief, if you believe in the Son of God you will be saved and have everlasting life in paradise.

Out of all of the versions of "your religion", how do you know you picked the right one? 

What evidence do you have to prove that your religion is right and all others are wrong?

It is based on the Holy Scriptures.  I use the best discernment I can to determine the text but I realize I am a fallible human.

---

Ultimately, and this is germane to our new friends post above..it doesn't matter whether or not "god" has a designer.  If there is a god (and let;s just imagine he has no contingencies and he;s super duper powerful and interacts with our world)...that;s still not how we got here.  If we live in a world in which the proposition "god exists" is true., that doesn't change the fact that we also live in a world where there are facts of biology.

Other believers can reconcile their god stories with the facts of biology, I rate it no higher than a personal tick of specific people when they fail to do so.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter. It's still not "God" if the designer evolved naturally or if the designer itself had a designer.

It's not about being pragmatic. It's about being accurate. For all intents and purposes it may as well be deemed "God" but that's not the same thing as it actually being God. A being outside the universe is not something that there can ever be any empirical evidence of.

Maybe or maybe not but the signatures of that being can be detected within the creation (i.e. highly sophisticated machines in the cell, advanced digital code in DNA, fine-tuned universe, 0 space at the Big Bang,.....).

---

Genetic information is a digital code.

Nope

Yes, digital code is not always binary 0s and 1s.  This is a 4-digit digital code.

---

51% of scientist in the USA, the most religious developed country. And 51% believing in God or a higher power does not imply that 51% think the origin of DNA is intelligent design. And the opinion of scientists on the topic of the origin of DNA who aren't in a field of biology carries no weight, and is an appeal to inappropriate authority.

In the Academy of Science (the 'best scientists'), it's more like 10% who believe in God or a higher power, btw.

Either this guy is a sock, or he's just repeating what was already said in another thread about this.

Just pulled those figures from the web from a Pew study.

---

Information always comes from a source (a mind or intelligence) that we know of. 

Again, you're asserting what you ought to be supporting.

What you're basically saying is 'All the X we've seen up until now has been caused by W. Here is a new X that is not clearly caused by W. But we know X is caused by W, so this X must be caused by W as well.'

It's not a very good argument, and it doesn't help that in this case the X in question (DNA) is quite dissimilar in important ways from the previous X's it's being compared to (language, computer programs, human artifacts).

Yeah, this X in question is the most highly complex and specific in the known universe.

---

Believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and be saved.

So.......... you really don't have answers for me, just believe. That's the best you can offer? You can't tell me which jesus is the right one?

This is what taught me that christianity was bullshit.

The Jesus of the Bible.  I would recommend you follow the One you read about in the Scriptures and to make sure to read it yourself (all of it).

[Mister Agenda]

So you DO know how to take up three minutes of your time to check claims you doubt for yourself instead of acting like you've a right to demand someone else do it?