DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

Well, you're welcome to believe what you like.  I'm not disputing that.  What I am disputing is whether you have good reasons for believing what you do.  And as a side note, evolution isn't a blind process, so your belief is about something other than evolution, even if evolution were the entire story, which it is not.  However if you believe that supposedly blind processes such as what you believe evolution to be cannot produce those things, without good reasons for believing it, then your belief is simply irrational and worthy of neither respect nor similar belief.

So the question becomes, do you have good reasons for believing that natural processes (not blind processes, as that's a straw man) cannot produce such things?

If not, your 1,000+ page screed is worth absolutely nothing other than as a display of how religion turns people into ignorant and irrational twats.

So, do you?

DNA is either designed or not.  Natural selection is a non-design process which is impossible to create functional complex information in my opinion.

You keep claiming that it is impossible, yet you never provide any reasons or evidence for your claim. And I'm going to keep dogging you on that fact. Your start is good. DNA is either designed or it is not. Period. And that's where things stand until you provide reasons or evidence for why it would be impossible. You simply believing that it is impossible without any reasons or evidence is irrational. You aren't irrational, are you? If not, then provide reasons or evidence for your claim that it is impossible.

I can say this as many times and in as many ways as need be. So you need to change your answer by providing some evidence or reason for it being impossible.

(Btw, continually mouthing your faith in the impossibility of it without providing evidence or reasons proves you to be a mouse rather than a lion. You need to change your avatar to reflect that.)

[LadyForCamus]

This thread is my personal hell.  Why do I keep coming back to it?! 😭

Why is it your personal hell?  I don't think it's bad.

Then you obviously haven’t read it, lol.

[CDF47]

Because it is super complex and functional.

 
"Super complex and functional" things arise without any guiding intelligence, as has been addressed... at length.... in this thread.   Again, your reasons for asserting that some x is impossible aren't even as good as others reasons were..and they ended up being wrong anyway.  Arguments from incredulity aren't reliable in the best of cases, and your appears to be significantly less than the best of cases.

Additionally, and this has also been addressed at length, but  your reason™ above wouldn't apply to something simple and functional, would it?  Like a rock, or some bit of blunt organic chemistry?  I ask, because most people expect that the precursor to dna was significantly less "complex" and "functional".

This leaves us in a strange situation, where a poor reason™..even if true, would not be a reason for the stated conclusion anyway.

Do you think this explanation for why something would be impossible is compelling when the allegedly impossible thing is a god, I wonder?

I think your explanation is impossible.

---

And Meyer is not biologist. His degrees are in something else.
Not sure, but I think he quit the Discovery Institute, realizing it would "dead-end" his career.

Actually he does have degrees but that just makes more shameful 
And it was Behe who left because he admitted the research was going nowhere and considering Disco Tutes funding gone down the shitter and the fact they reached none of their goals it's only a matter of time . Of course they are not the last of this but they are the most powerful .

Where did you see that Dr. Behe left?

---

---

Where does he say that.  Quote it.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Be..._testimony

He never admitted to lying as was claimed in this thread.

---

DNA is either designed or not.  Natural selection is a non-design process which is impossible to create functional complex information in my opinion.

You keep claiming that it is impossible, yet you never provide any reasons or evidence for your claim.  And I'm going to keep dogging you on that fact.  Your start is good.  DNA is either designed or it is not.  Period.  And that's where things stand until you provide reasons or evidence for why it would be impossible.  You simply believing that it is impossible without any reasons or evidence is irrational.  You aren't irrational, are you?  If not, then provide reasons or evidence for your claim that it is impossible.

I can say this as many times and in as many ways as need be.  So you need to change your answer by providing some evidence or reason for it being impossible.

(Btw, continually mouthing your faith in the impossibility of it without providing evidence or reasons proves you to be a mouse rather than a lion.  You need to change your avatar to reflect that.)

Because it is a blind and dumb un-directed process is natural selection.  The Lion of Judah in my avatar is the Lord Jesus.  He came here as a lamb and will return as a lion.

---

Why is it your personal hell?  I don't think it's bad.

Then you obviously haven’t read it, lol.

I read nearly every post except for when Ev was doing battle 40 pages at a time.  LOL

[sdelsolray]

-and yet you believe that a wizard played in the mud.  

Your personal credulity or incredulity is completely uninformative.  "I can't believe that man will ever go to the moon".  "I can't believe that man will ever fly"  "I cant believe that the heart can be operated on".  All of these things we're beyond the scope of what people far more educated than yourself believed, at different points in time, as well.  They were all wrong.  They, at least, could articulate a valid reason for why them found themselves so incredulous.  You haven't managed to do so in 1k pages...even though everyone here knows why, as do you, lol.

That is different from man explaining functional information in the cell.

Says the one who stated earlier in this thread that he has not even read Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell.

[CDF47]

That is different from man explaining functional information in the cell.

Says the one who stated earlier in this thread that he has not even read Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell.

No, but I have done enough reading and video watching on the web.  More than a single book could contain.

[downbeatplumb]

Says the one who stated earlier in this thread that he has not even read Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell.

No, but I have done enough reading and video watching on the web.  More than a single book could contain.

That very much depends on the book doesn't it?

[Abaddon_ire]

The evidence is that the information is not only extremely complex (like machine code but way more complex) it is also functional (like machine code).  It encodes the construct of proteins in the cell.  See the videos in my signature.

DNA is nothing like machine code. That you continue to repeat this lie simply demonstrates that you are a liar.

[Anomalocaris]

Says the one who stated earlier in this thread that he has not even read Stephen Meyer's book Signature in the Cell.

No, but I have done enough reading and video watching on the web.  More than a single book could contain.

No, you clearly have not.   You cherry picked your reading to confirm you idiotic and discreditable biases.  You eagerly wish the huckster’s twattle you selected as your guide to science, which to you is but for support and not illumination anyway, is enough because you morbidly fear that any real reading of things actually worth reading might actually illuminate and make it clear what a unworthy and ignorant fool you have been hitherto to cling to your Jesus cut.

[CDF47]

No, but I have done enough reading and video watching on the web.  More than a single book could contain.

That very much depends on the book doesn't it?

Yes, in a way it does.

---

The evidence is that the information is not only extremely complex (like machine code but way more complex) it is also functional (like machine code).  It encodes the construct of proteins in the cell.  See the videos in my signature.

DNA is nothing like machine code. That you continue to repeat this lie simply demonstrates that you are a liar.

Watch the video in my signature.

---

No, but I have done enough reading and video watching on the web.  More than a single book could contain.

No, you clearly have not.   You cherry picked your reading to confirm you idiotic and discreditable biases.  You eagerly wish the huckster’s twattle you selected as your guide to science, which to you is but for support and not illumination anyway, is enough because you morbidly fear that any real reading of things actually worth reading might actually illuminate and make it clear what a unworthy and ignorant fool you have been hitherto to cling to your Jesus cut.

OK, so now how do you really feel?!?!

[Anomalocaris]

No, you clearly have not.   You cherry picked your reading to confirm you idiotic and discreditable biases.  You eagerly wish the huckster’s twattle you selected as your guide to science, which to you is but for support and not illumination anyway, is enough because you morbidly fear that any real reading of things actually worth reading might actually illuminate and make it clear what a unworthy and ignorant fool you have been hitherto to cling to your Jesus cut.

OK, so now how do you really feel?!?!

If only you would be half as quick to also pick up on what everyone else on this thread who are more knowledgeable about the real state of modern biological science have spent the length of this 11000 post trying to explain to you, instead of tediously regurgitating as you do the same chewed deggeral from the same handful of miserable failures of pseudoscientific charlatans you so misguidedly revere.