DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

And a complex sculpture can arise from mere clay, but an intelligent conscious being is still required.

Comparing man made objects to nature phenomena is bullshit

---

I think evolution is very possibly true, but parts of it are not proven beyond any doubt.

It's beyond serious doubt .

 The age of the universe is something we can only speculate about, 

Nope it's beyond serious doubt the earth is billions of years old get over it . 

with the best estimates being approx 13.8 billion years old. As far as the existence of "everything and anything"

False

 I believe God always hase been and always will be, as well as our true selves. We are what is.

Assertions

[Peebothuhlu]

And a complex sculpture can arise from mere clay, but an intelligent conscious being is still required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Rock

Dang. My linking skillz suck.

Complex form arise quite naturall with no intelligence involved/associated all over the place. Jus' sayin'.

[Angrboda]

And a complex sculpture can arise from mere clay, but an intelligent conscious being is still required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Rock

Dang. My linking skillz suck.

Complex form arise quite naturall with no intelligence involved/associated all over the place. Jus' sayin'.

[CDF47]

I am an OEC. 

Then why the anger towards the fact of evolution.  Evolution is a problem for YECs mostly.

I disagree with common ancestry.

---

You had me right up until the point where you totally ignored the fundamental truth that Brahma created everything.

---

Steps to conflation:

1)  Define "information" in a way that covers physical/chemical relationships
2)  Say that there's therefore a designer, even though the re-definition in (1) doesn't require one
3)  Ignore the fact that two different definitions have been used or implied

1)  Define any systematic encoding of information as a "language."
2)  Since we all know that languages are communication tools, and only sentient beings can communicate with each other, insist that all encoding of information implies sentient beings.
3)  Ignore the fact that two different definitions have been used or implied

Let me add another one.
1)  Beautiful things are art
2)  Sunsets are beautiful
3)  Therefore, an artist must have created sunsets.  Must be God.

Or this:
1)  Chains are a series of interlocking metal rings
2)  Proteins form into chains
3)  Therefore, proteins are made of metal.

Oh, wait. . . that last one seems flawed somehow.

---

Adding billions of years to something does not all of a sudden make it possible. A complex code does not just come into existence from nothing.

---

I can't wait to dissect the creator to prove that he was also created by another creator.

God always has been and always will be, just like our true selves. We are what is.

---

You said it yourself, we label parts of the DNA with letters. That produces information, for us to try and understand how it works.

I think scientists have a pretty good idea about the origins of DNA, but even if they didn't, that doesn't imply a designer. We would just be lacking an explanation. That's not an invitation to invent explanations.

If someone did design life, they did a horrendous job.

Also, who cares if we are designed anyway? What difference does it make?

I think the designer did a fantastic job designing life. What are your specific problems with it? Are you attracted to other humans or would you rather them look some other way?

---

Ignoramus has a point OP. Just because something is complex and intricate does not necessarily mean it has a creator.

Be careful posting links. We have a 30/30 rule which means no links until you've been here 30 days, made 30 posts. BUT, your links were put there to support your argument so they might not get snipped. Just for future reference. Here's da rules btw. All pretty standard stuff, really. https://atheistforums.org/rules.php

What specifically convinces you that complex things can just come to life or come into existence from nothing with no intelligence? And don't say billions of years of evolution because that is a cop-out and a straw man argument.

Great post.

---

You are missing the part about the information and how it operates.  See the videos in my signature.  This is obviously designed.  The ribosome alone acts like a manufacturing plant assembling complex proteins from amino acids based on the information in the DNA.  Just amazing.

I am not 47 or born in 47.

---

I don't believe there is evidence for a change of kinds or in macro-evolution.

They don't like to talk about macroevolution because the evidence for it is flimsy at best. The only thing that has been proven beyond any doubt is adaption.

Agreed.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_Rock

Dang. My linking skillz suck.

Complex form arise quite naturall with no intelligence involved/associated all over the place. Jus' sayin'.

That photo is a bad joke compared to the specified functional complexity found in DNA.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Gwaithmir]

Yes, I do, just as I believe there is an intelligent force underlying everything in this universe that is. How could it possibly be otherwise?

You are  engaging in a logical fallacy known as Shifting the Burden of Proof. The burden of proof rests upon the person making the positive assertion. You are claiming the existence of an intelligent Creator. Prove it!

[LadyForCamus]

I hope that was at a Trump rally! 😝

[vulcanlogician]

I hope that was at a Trump rally! 😝

Too many mullets not to be.

[Peebothuhlu]

[quote pid='1845767' dateline='1541892998']




That photo is a bad joke compared to the specified functional complexity found in DNA.
[/quote]

It, and the 'Wave' formation of sculpted rock not clearly shown, may or may not be humorous to yourself.

It does, how ever, very clearly and succunctly show that you CAN have many and varied shapes in and caused BY
'Nature' that do NOT have the 'Directing hand' of any intelligence behind them.

Hence, the purpose of me linking them into this thread about such things.

You STILL have not clearly, nor properly defined yourself nor your terms. You just waffle and flail about with your assertions.

Congrats on having some one else come tilt at your windmill, though.

Not at work.

[pocaracas]

No, science definintely does not know why or how we have consciousness. There are neuroscientists all over the world working on solving the mystery of it right now.  And yours is also an argument of ignorance, just so we are on the same page with the type of discussion we are having.

If I may interject....

Would you say that a dog has consciousness?
How about a cat?
A chimp?
A bonobo?
An elephant?
An octopus?
A dolphin?
A whale?
A mouse?
A house fly?

What is consciousness?
How does it apply to humans, but not to most (or all) other animals?

Those neurologists look at all these and more animals and, within the limits of our ability to offer their thinking, attribute a spectrum of complexity of thought, of awareness of self and the world around... a spectrum of consciousness.
But you seem to imply that consciousness is an "all or nothing" deal. Either you have human-like consciousness, or you have nothing. Am I right?
If this were so, then I agree that we'd need to ask why that is...
But it's not. So there is no why.... And the how becomes a simple matter of complexity of certain structures of the brain.
And how did those structures evolve into what we see today? Here, since were taking about quite long time scales and actual brains of previous species have long decompress, we must speculate, based on the spectrum of brains we do see today and how they fit with brain sizes from what fossils we have from those previous species.

On the one hand, we have educated guesses, getting validated by computer modeling.
On the other, we have the next stage after myth, which was itself the next stage after folklore and tradition: god did it.

If you understand the history of the concept of god and evolution, then you understand that first there were men, already possessing a consciousness, and those men conjured up a rudimentary concept of god to help explain the world around them, the transition from life to death and to help ease the pain over lost loved ones. No god is actually required, but those people end up embracing the concept and believing it to be true.

If there was indeed a god behind consciousness itself, then let it come forward in the timeless fashion which you claim it has. Let all humans (those who feel the need to explain to other humans things about god) be quiet. Let god do the explaining and, if it fails at that task, let it remain the mental construct, the psychological crutch it has always been.