DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[possibletarian]

Uh, no

The debate you imagined isn’t over because it could never start.  

There could never be any debate involving your cult. With you there is only a echo chamber of calculating hucksters and gullible wish thinking fools affirming an infantile preconceived notion because your cult threaten you with hellfire and load you with Unscrupulous guilt trip if you don’t.

The serious debate could never involve the likes of your kind.   Amongst serious scientists the debate has been over for a hundred years.  There is neither evidence nor need for design.  Natural elements sufficient to convince of their adequacy is readily to be found for each and every step needed from prelude to life to you.

So take your head out of sand made from jesus capolite.

The scientific community disagrees with you.  51 percent of scientists are believers and 41 percent are non-believers based on a Pew poll result.  Once the stigma of ID wears old, I expect that number to increase even more for believers.  Also, 89 percent of people in the US believe in God based on a Gallup poll.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scien...nd-belief/
http://news.gallup.com/poll/193271/ameri...e-god.aspx

I've never seen such utter disgraceful deception in all my time here, a quick look at you first link quickly confirms that it is not 51% of scientists at all, lets highlight some of it. *bold and italics mine in the quotes below*

A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

Firstly it is only members of the AAAS, it is deceitful and wrong to list any result form a single group of 51% of scientists as a whole.

Lets go on...

According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.

Only 33% of this limited group believe in god, That does NOT mean they believe in creationism or that DNA is intelligently designed. Many of the scientists polled have no qualifications in the appropriate fields.

Lets have a look at the second link...


   

89% of Americans say they believe in God
   In a separate poll, 79% say "believe in God" and 10% "not sure"
   All measures of belief in God show declines from previous decades

If you want to believe that figure will go up, fine, but the statistics certainly don't show it.

Many Scientific associations are opposed to intelligent design, here is a list of some.

Many other scientific organizations are opposed to teaching intelligent design as a science-based alternative to evolution, including:
New Orleans Geological Society
New York Academy of Sciences
Ohio Academy of Science
Ohio Math and Science Coalition
Oklahoma Academy of Sciences
Sigma Xi, Louisiana State University Chapter, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Society for Amateur Scientists
Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
Society for Neuroscience
Society for Organic Petrology
Society for the Study of Evolution
Society of Physics Students
Society of Systematic Biologists
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Southern Anthropological Society
Virginia Academy of Science
West Virginia Academy of Science
American Association of Physical Anthropologists
American Geophysical Union
American Society of Biological Chemists
American Psychological Association
American Physical Society
American Society of Parasitologists
Association for Women Geoscientists
Australian Academy of Science
California Academy of Sciences
Ecological Society of America
Genetics Society of America
Geological Society of America
Georgia Academy of Science
History of Science Society
Iowa Academy of Science
Kentucky Paleontological Society
Louisiana Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
North American Benthological Society
North Carolina Academy of Science

Source: https://www.aclu.org/other/what-scientif...ent-design

[The Grand Nudger]

Black holes are complex... Are they also made explicitly by a creator?

Again, that's Shannon information.  It is not specified and complex.  However, based on the fine-tuning of the universe, I believe the entire universe is designed so the black hole is also designed, ultimately.  DNA contains information/a code!

So what?  You think shannon info requires a god too. Something being complex -or- simple isn't a difference, to you...and because of this, one thing being simple and one thing being complex is no particular indication of anything. 

You butchered that one.

[Quick]

Black holes are complex... Are they also made explicitly by a creator?

Again, that's Shannon information.  It is not specified and complex.  However, based on the fine-tuning of the universe, I believe the entire universe is designed so the black hole is also designed, ultimately. DNA contains information/a code!

How do you know that black holes don't have information/a code? Stephen Hawking had a theory that black holes store the information that they take in on the surface of their surface area. That can very well be viewed as information/a code. Now that we have out of the way that it's possible that black holes can store information/a code, we are back to my previous statement where I said these beliefs cannot be made based on rationality alone considering we DON'T know.

[Amarok]

Again, that's Shannon information.  It is not specified and complex.  However, based on the fine-tuning of the universe, I believe the entire universe is designed so the black hole is also designed, ultimately. DNA contains information/a code!

And we already been over this . This distinction is ID bullshit and excuse making .

[Anomalocaris]

Uh, no

The debate you imagined isn’t over because it could never start.  

There could never be any debate involving your cult. With you there is only a echo chamber of calculating hucksters and gullible wish thinking fools affirming an infantile preconceived notion because your cult threaten you with hellfire and load you with Unscrupulous guilt trip if you don’t.

The serious debate could never involve the likes of your kind.   Amongst serious scientists the debate has been over for a hundred years.  There is neither evidence nor need for design.  Natural elements sufficient to convince of their adequacy is readily to be found for each and every step needed from prelude to life to you.

So take your head out of sand made from jesus capolite.

The scientific community disagrees with you.  51 percent of scientists are believers and 41 percent are non-believers based on a Pew poll result.  Once the stigma of ID wears old, I expect that number to increase even more for believers.  Also, 89 percent of people in the US believe in God based on a Gallup poll.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scien...nd-belief/
http://news.gallup.com/poll/193271/ameri...e-god.aspx

That really depends on how you define scientist, and from those whom you define as scientist, who exactly do you pick, doesn’t it?

Suffice it to say overwhelming percentage of PRACTICING BIOLOGISTS can’t even be bothered to give the time to those who would argue as you do.

Earlier in this thread, that has already been pointed out to you. But like any christard, you cling to whatever seem to you to support your preconceived notion, totally disregarding the most obvious flaws emphatically pointed out to you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Honestly, how hard would it be to just accept that you got the whole ID thing wrong..and still believe in a god?  You told us it wouldn;t matter anyway.  Seems to me like the door is wide open and all you need to do is step inside.

(the number of believing scientists and the number of scientists who accept id are not the same number, anyway)

[possibletarian]

Of course even if I.D. were true, It will not mean that the Christian god is any less absurd. or the bible any more true.

[surreptitious57]

One can give subjective meaning to their own life but that does not mean there is any objective meaning to life as such
There is no evidence for any such meaning. The Universe has no purpose or function. It merely exists. No more no less
It is only human beings that want there to be some objective meaning to life because they are generally afraid of death
But death is the point where consciousness no longer exists so it cannot be experienced so then there is nothing to fear

[Amarok]

The scientific community disagrees with you.  51 percent of scientists are believers and 41 percent are non-believers based on a Pew poll result.  Once the stigma of ID wears old, I expect that number to increase even more for believers.  Also, 89 percent of people in the US believe in God based on a Gallup poll.

1. Just because scientist believe something personally does not make that thing scientific . Even if the numbers we 90% it wouldn't matter .

2. Believing in god does not mean you believe in ID . 

3. ID has barely grown in 17 years . That stigma is here to stay . As ID isn't science it's just religious apologetics disguising itself as science .

[Quick]

My views stem from experiences that have happened to myself and others that cannot be explained rationally.

Like seeing Elvis, you mean? 

ofc not. I mean things like how quantum mechanics work and the law of attraction and things of that nature.

In short, I believe that there is meaning to our existence and you cannot have meaning without an other thinking said thing has meaning.

If all you needed was an other thinking thing...well, you're surrounded by them.  I;m not sure what gods have to do with that.

Right. And there is also a whole lot we don't know about consciousness either. I don't believe consciousness is deterministic anyways. One argument I have made about consciousness and whether we can know whether we are the only thing that exists in the past, is in our a priori knowledge that an other (could very well be a person and I don't think that changes the argument) exists in the first place. Why would this be a given in the first place? It shouldn't be, but it is. Our development of life in the first place is what I am talking about. I don't think you are making the argument that we are the "first" life form. If we are not, what is the big distinction between the universe itself being the first living thing and us?