DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Gwaithmir]

Prove it.

Its based on faith but not blind faith.  After realizing the universe and living systems are designed, it is time to jump to theology for answers.

And you can start by proving that God exists. Without a divine designer, your entire hypothesis collapses.

[The Grand Nudger]

Prove it.

Its based on faith but not blind faith.  After realizing the universe and living systems are designed, it is time to jump to theology for answers.

A leap of faith is a leap of faith.

It doesn't follow, though.  Even if we find ourselves wondering about some design, or a natural teleology, that doesn't add a divine entity to the universe.  We've been designed by our environment, not formless wisps out there in the ether, lol.

[Gwaithmir]

And for the 4 millionth time I said evidence of one species turning into an entirely different species.

And here it is again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Angrboda]

Its based on faith but not blind faith.  After realizing the universe and living systems are designed, it is time to jump to theology for answers.

And you can start by proving that God exists. Without a divine designer, your entire hypothesis collapses.

In fairness, I think this may be putting the cart before the horse. The idea of proof of a designer is evidence of the existence of such a God, even if far from conclusive. It's true that having evidence or knowledge of the mechanism involved, namely an intelligent, all-powerful agent would enhance the probability that design is true, but we consider hypotheses without plausible mechanisms all the time, from acupuncture to remote viewing. The lack of a known mechanism is not in itself an absolute bar to discovery.

[The Grand Nudger]

In this case, though, there is a known mechanism....and it's a believers need to deny that known mechanism so that they can insert their unknown forces which reduces the whole enterprise to farce.

[Anomalocaris]

Prove it.

Its based on faith but not blind faith.  After realizing the universe and living systems are designed, it is time to jump to theology for answers.

There is no such thing as faith that is not blind.   If it was not blind it wouldn’t need faith.

Your Realization is wrong.

It only seems to you to be time to jump into theology because you are infantile, misguided and lacking in fundamental facility for critical thinking.

Theology never offers any real answers.  Nor can it ever.   It contains no mechanism whatsoever for searching for material truth outside human psychology.   It is all about calculating what lies and crass fiction dovetails best with common human cognitive deficits and thus can must likely be used as unifying element for forming cults.

[Angrboda]

In this case, though, there is a known mechanism....and it's a believers need to deny that known mechanism so that they can insert their unknown forces which reduces the whole enterprise to farce.

Oh I don't dispute that the logic they use to support their hypothesis is flawed, but the overall approach is not, on its surface, impeachable solely for lack of a mechanism, i.e. demonstration of God's existence.

[Everena]

Everena: Why? Because I am not completely brainwashed by it like you apparently are? Healthy skepticism is a good thing.

 

Says one who “knows” with absolute certainty.


Has it ever occur to you that your combination of towering conceit, abysmal ignorance, obliviousness to irony and propensity for mining quotes and articles you don’t understand makes you a quite a desirable central attraction for a morbid psychiatric cabinet or curiosities?

Oh and I suppose you are saying that you are so much more intelligent than I am, right? But, if you really were, you would just apply simple logic and realize how obvious it is that God exists. And be specific with your insults. What do you I not understand exactly?

[Silver]

Oh and I suppose you are saying that you are so much more intelligent than I am, right? But, if you really were, you would just apply simple logic and realize how obvious it is that God exists. And be specific with your insults. What do you I not understand exactly?

[Gwaithmir]

And you can start by proving that God exists. Without a divine designer, your entire hypothesis collapses.

In fairness, I think this may be putting the cart before the horse.  The idea of proof of a designer is evidence of the existence of such a God, even if far from conclusive.  It's true that having evidence or knowledge of the mechanism involved, namely an intelligent, all-powerful agent would enhance the probability that design is true, but we consider hypotheses without plausible mechanisms all the time, from acupuncture to remote viewing.  The lack of a known mechanism is not in itself an absolute bar to discovery.

Remote Viewing and Acupuncture are testable, falsifiable hypotheses. Artificial design in nature is not. I have yet to see a case for Intelligent Design which did not involve some form of special pleading or argument from ignorance.