DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Fair enough.  You will never find a natural cause for the information in DNA, I predict.  Information always comes from an intelligence.

---

You all just try to discredit the ID scientists, many of which are brighter than you.  It's a debate trick.  Dr. Meyer is a brilliant scientist.

Yes, they do.

No, it's not.

See my top response above.

No, you are.

---

Any source which posts ID will just be called an illegitimate source by you guys so it's pointless debate.  It's just a debate trick is all, even when numerous reputable sources are provided.

---

Feelings are mutual.

God is the primordial One.  He is eternal.

So too all the information in DNA is eternal.

Modern physics specifies information can never be created or destroyed.  Ever.   Information that is the universe is eternal.  No intelligence is needed for it to have “come from”.  No assumption is needed about it needing to create its own mother, fuck its own mother to give himself birth in order to save you from something it fAcilitated for doing something it fAcilitated.

The universe had a beginning from nothing to the best of our knowledge.  So no information.  The universe will also suffer a death.  The information is then finite.

---

He knows a code always comes from a programmer.  It's that simple.  This code just happens to be the most sophisticated in the universe.  It is clearly designed.

No, he does not know.  He assumes his limited experience is generally applicable to fields far outside his experience and education and conflates assumptions with knowledge.

Not a smart one.

---

I believe in the fall of man

Ah, see, here you actually produce evidence that you are a fucking moron.  Keep going along that track.  Maybe you'll get somewhere.  Or maybe you'll get hit by a train.

OK.  Your point?

---

The article below provides better information on irreducible complexity:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...php/id/840

As I pointed out to you earlier, arguments such as the one in this article are arguments from ignorance which are invalid by definition.

Behe's claim that these structures are irreducibly complex rests on the idea that precursor systems have not been found (even though they have), when he needs to show that precursor systems are not possible, which he has not done.

That's a classic argument from ignorance.

Precursors have not been found.  The pump is a different 10 part system than the 40 part motor.  They just share similar parts and are configured a like.

[Minimalist]

That's a classic argument from ignorance.

What else would you expect from this troll?

[CDF47]

That's a classic argument from ignorance.

What else would you expect from this troll?

You're the troll.

[Anomalocaris]

The mark of a theist is his truth is only true if he can convince others to believe it as he has convinced himself to believe it.

Hence the pulpable frustration of the CDF47.  It has to be true because he must be saved.   yet why do people not believe it and thus deprive him of this consensus that would allow him to sleep the perfect dream of salvation?

The answer, CDF, is we are confident you can never be saved.

[Amarok]

Fair enough.  You will never find a natural cause for the information in DNA, I predict.  Information always comes from an intelligence

Assertion and Assertion

You all just try to discredit the ID scientists, many of which are brighter than you.  It's a debate trick.  Dr. Meyer is a brilliant scientist.

There are no ID scientists and I don't need to discredit them there choice to push pseudoscience has already done that . It has nothing to do with debate or trickery it's a fact . And no Meyers is Charlatan in a lab coat

Yes, they do.

No they do not 

No, it's not.

Yes it is

See my top response above. 

Your response is non answer

No, you are

Nope you are

Any source which posts ID will just be called an illegitimate source by you guys so it's pointless debate.  It's just a debate trick is all, even when numerous reputable sources are provided.

Nope any source of ID is a propaganda site and no legit by definition .i has nothing to do debate they are bunk sites they push bunk idea's . And any legit sources you provide you distort for your ID agenda .

Disagree

It's not a matter of opinion that can be disagreed on . Your wrong 

Exactly, using God's materials.

Nope using naturally formed materials . There is no reason to compare man made objects to living things it's a fallacious comparison without merit .

No, it's not.

Yes it is 

No, it's not.

Yes it is

[Silver]

What else would you expect from this troll?

You're the troll.

Neener neener neener.

[Amarok]

The universe had a beginning from nothing to the best of our knowledge.  So no information.  The universe will also suffer a death.  The information is then finite.

Umm no

recursors have not been found.  The pump is a different 10 part system than the 40 part motor.  They just share similar parts and are configured a like.

Fallacy or as PZ puts it 

The core of their argument is this; that complexity can only be created by design. That's the first premise they offer up.
And then what they do, in their lectures, is they tell you over and over again; "biology is really complex". And then that means; "biology was created by design".
Now, I suspect there are a few philosophers out there in the audience — if you ever want to teach your students about the fallacy called begging the question? Send them to the Discovery Institute webpage. That'swhat it is — this is a big exercise in circular logic; in begging the question.
—P.Z. Myers

the fallacy of Irreducible complexity 



And it's sequel

[CDF47]

The mark of a theist is his truth is only true if he can convince others to believe it as he has convinced himself to believe it.

Hence the pulpable frustration of the CDF47.  It has to be true because he must be saved.   yet why do people not believe it and thus deprive him of this consensus that would allow him to sleep the perfect dream of salvation?

The answer, CDF, is we are confident you can never be saved.

God willing, I can be.

---

Fair enough.  You will never find a natural cause for the information in DNA, I predict.  Information always comes from an intelligence

Assertion and Assertion

You all just try to discredit the ID scientists, many of which are brighter than you.  It's a debate trick.  Dr. Meyer is a brilliant scientist.

There are no ID scientists and I don't need to discredit them there choice to push pseudoscience has already done that . It has nothing to do with debate or trickery it's a fact . And no Meyers is Charlatan in a lab coat

Yes, they do.

No they do not 

No, it's not.

Yes it is

See my top response above. 

Your response is non answer

No, you are

Nope you are

Any source which posts ID will just be called an illegitimate source by you guys so it's pointless debate.  It's just a debate trick is all, even when numerous reputable sources are provided.

Nope any source of ID is a propaganda site and no legit by definition .i has nothing to do debate they are bunk sites they push bunk idea's . And any legit sources you provide you distort for your ID agenda .

Disagree

It's not a matter of opinion that can be disagreed on . Your wrong 

Exactly, using God's materials.

Nope using naturally formed materials . There is no reason to compare man made objects to living things it's a fallacious comparison without merit .

No, it's not.

Yes it is 

No, it's not.

Yes it is

Disagree

[Angrboda]

As I pointed out to you earlier, arguments such as the one in this article are arguments from ignorance which are invalid by definition.

Behe's claim that these structures are irreducibly complex rests on the idea that precursor systems have not been found (even though they have), when he needs to show that precursor systems are not possible, which he has not done.

That's a classic argument from ignorance.

Precursors have not been found.  The pump is a different 10 part system than the 40 part motor.  They just share similar parts and are configured a like.

Even if that were true, it would still be a fallacious argument. You're quibbling about the terms of surrender after you've already lost the battle.

[Amarok]

Disagree

Your wrong no disagreement to be had .

---

Why irreducible complexity is flawed by conception and pseudoscience 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication...udoscience

---

The expelled leaders guide ripped to pieces 
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Expelled:_...%27s_Guide

---

Try this experiment if you ever find yourself talking to a proponent of ID. Say, "OK, for the sake of argument let's say evolution is wrong and let's forget about it. Now tell me how intelligent design works." Having tried this a few times myself, I am confident that you will be met with nothing but an awkward silence.
—Amanda Gefter[

Good one Amanda

---

Watch my good friend and Biologist Fiona Robertson own someone very much like CD




And Kicking ID ass a little further up the totem pole .

---

Why ID information theory is bollocks. From a professor of computer science . 

http://recursed.blogspot.ca/2009/10/step...heory.html