DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Based on the article below, 19 months is when a child shows understanding of right from wrong.  

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/new...onths.html

A sense of fairness, like empathy, != morality.

With little kids, especially, their notions of fairness are filtered through a selfish lens.  "What's fair to me?"

I have a young niece and nephew (5 and 6 respectively).  Despite their parents and extended family (including myself) teaching them to share their toys among themselves and not fight over them, they inevitably do.  Because their notions of fairness extend only to the boundary of their reach.  It's unfair, to them, that one of them played with the cool toy for some unspecified length of time.  Or that one of the toys belongs to them, and they want it back.  Or that the other person won't engage in a patently unfair toy playing trade because they're smart enough to know that it's not in their best interest.  Or another slight, real or imagined.

Again, parenting would be a lot easier if kids came out of the womb with morality intact.  Instead, much of it is learned.

I could see that as being true regarding sharing of toys.  Kids can be selfish, especially at that age.

[Angrboda]

If you think that the only reason we don’t believe DNA proves a designer is because we’re stubborn, then why are you simply repeating the thing you think we’re being stubborn about over and over?  What do suppose that accomplishes?

When someone says something to the contrary I just feel the need to correct them and point back to DNA which proves it.

How does it in any way prove it? You've already admitted to not having any actual evidence that DNA is both complex and specified, so what are you basing this claim on? Your intuition that it is designed? Your intuitions in the matter are worth dick. What actual evidence do you have that the properties embodied by DNA cannot have a natural origin and must therefore be designed?

[CDF47]

When someone says something to the contrary I just feel the need to correct them and point back to DNA which proves it.

How does it in any way prove it?  You've already admitted to not having any actual evidence that DNA is both complex and specified, so what are you basing this claim on?  Your intuition that it is designed?  Your intuitions in the matter are worth dick.  What actual evidence do you have that the properties embodied by DNA cannot have a natural origin and must therefore be designed?

The information is digital and it is a code that programs the construction of highly sophisticated advanced nano molecular machine.

[The Grand Nudger]

So what, mindless computers write code with regularity, as you've agreed.

[CDF47]

So what, mindless computers write code with regularity, as you've agreed.

Computers built and constructed by a creator programmed to write code can write code.  Not mindless.

[Angrboda]

How does it in any way prove it?  You've already admitted to not having any actual evidence that DNA is both complex and specified, so what are you basing this claim on?  Your intuition that it is designed?  Your intuitions in the matter are worth dick.  What actual evidence do you have that the properties embodied by DNA cannot have a natural origin and must therefore be designed?

The information is digital and it is a code that programs the construction of highly sophisticated advanced nano molecular machine.

Not an answer to the question. You've just replaced DNA with a description of it, not demonstrated that "digital information that programs the construction of highly sophisticated advanced nano molecular machines," cannot arise naturally.

[The Grand Nudger]

So what, mindless computers write code with regularity, as you've agreed.

Computers built and constructed by a creator programmed to write code can write code.  Not mindless.

Would you like to reverse your earlier comments, then, and claim that computers have minds? Or perhaps you'd like to assert that paper airplanes are similarly not mindless..on account of them having been created by the same human beings? (though..I thought we already discussed this?)

That would be disastrous for your supernatural argument..but you;re certainly free to shoot your own foot if you absolutely feel the need to do so.

[Amarok]

Computers built and constructed by a creator programmed to write code can write code.  Not mindless.

Fallacy

---

Computers built and constructed by a creator programmed to write code can write code.  Not mindless.

Fallacy

---

He had a message of love, trust, wrath, hate, peace, war, sorrow,....  He is a multi-dimensional God.  Like we are multi-dimensional people made from His image.

He's the  incoherent hodge podge of cults and kings

---

Creator is proven then it is time to examine which Creator is true.  I believe that is the Christian Creator in the Bible.

No such thing is proven

[The Grand Nudger]

Just to be entirely fair and transparent..I realized the moment that you started down the "it;s code" line you'd painted yourself into an impossible corner.

The thing you're referring to as instructive of a god is an entirely natural mindless thing producing the very thing you take to be informative.  Even if you try to dial it back (as you have)..then we see another natural (this time mindful) thing producing not only the exact thing you take to be instructive.....but also the means by which -it's- produced.

Either of us could qualify as the "intelligent designer" of the products.  Maybe then you'd claim that the computer isn;t intelligent, though....but then a mindless unintelligent thing is producing the exact thing you take to be instructive.

Do you see how it starts out bad..and only gets worse?

[Amarok]

I turn away from sin.  I am just not perfect at it, as no one is, except for Jesus.  I don't hate my brother or blaspheme the Lord, you do.  

That's a disgusting thought.

No it's your theology that is disgusting

---

The Creator is real Mr. Joods.

Zero evidence only fallacies

---

Yeah, I hate that sin. Man was made to be with woman.

Bigotry

---

It's because people here won't open their eyes to the miracle of design that is so obvious.  

Only if you ignore reality 

That is why I repeat it.  

You repeat it to preach and convince yourself 

If you would just acknowledge it a bit as a possibility it would be less a problem.

Absolutely no reason to 

  Instead it is the same old, God doesn't exist and I don't like him anyway jargon.

Strawman

---

The information is digital and it is a code that programs the construction of highly sophisticated advanced nano molecular machine.

Falsehood and fallacy

---

Again, mixing of meet with dairy is OT law.  The Lord did not want His people doing it because it was a fertile practice of the pagans.  

He wants people to operate according to his design as is built into our conscious.  We know right from wrong as children.  

I am a sinner.  I repent when I si

Absurdity

---

This is the way He chooses to do it.  It is His will to handle it this way.  No one is to say how it should be done but Him

Nope not an argument

---

The Designer created DNA.  It is clearly designed, as is the universe.  Science reaches a sort of plateau at this point and it is time to turn to theology.  In turning to theology, I believe the Christian God of the Bible is the One true Creator as stated in the Scriptures.  I turn to the Bible at that point to read about the mechanisms of the Lord.

No such plateau exists and theology is make believe and is worthless .

---

Based on the article below, 19 months is when a child shows understanding of right from wrong.  

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/new...onths.html

[url=https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/research-shows-toddlers-understand-right-from-wrong-at-just-19-months.html][/url]Which does not help your case