DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

Still waiting for your answer, CDF.....

The proof is in the information properties of DNA.

Exactly how is that proof that the information could not have arisen through natural means? DNA may be considered to contain information, but that alone says nothing about how that information did or could have arisen. Simply asserting that it is proof does nothing but kick the can down the road. Now you need to explain how the (alleged) presence of information in DNA is proof that it could not have arisen naturally. I keep asking you for reasons and evidence, and now you've simply circled back to your original claim that DNA is proof. By itself, information in DNA isn't evidence one way or another, it just is what it is. In order for it to be evidence for something, such as the impossibility of its natural production, you need to supply some reasons why it is evidence that it could not arise through natural means. Simply blurting out "information" and "DNA" and "complexity" accomplishes nothing as it has already been shown that information and complexity can arise naturally. If you're simply asserting that DNA couldn't arise naturally because DNA can't arise naturally, then you're simply begging the question. You need actual reasons for your belief, and so far you have provided none.

So in what way is the presence of information properties in DNA proof that it could not have arisen through natural means?

[Bucky Ball]

The only "information" in DNA is the molecular structure of the strand. The parts of DNA attract various different chemical structures.
Time and time again we have asked at what point are molecular structures complex enough, that one must infer a designer for them, (and not for others).
The question has never been answered.

One could say even a water molecule has "information".
Why did it not require a designer ?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Going to try and address some of this now . Might come back to it in a bit if I don't address it thoroughly.

First, the matter you mentioned about Jesus coming during the lifetime of those individuals.

He was speaking to his disciples when he said this.

Matt 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.


In verse 28 it mentions the event and narrows it down to some of them, but it doesn't specify which ones it will be.

Matt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Next chapter, three of them are present (Peter, James, John). This is six days later.

Matt 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

Fair enough... I do wonder what makes people nowadays to still wait for that coming?

With the graven image, it was the choice of people to make that statue.  If they were told not to and did it anyway, then it's on them

And, like that one, many others... Like on every church?

You mentioned "hearing God", but also noted you don't hear anything.  The last thing I want to do is sound insulting, so please keep that in mind.  Sometimes it's our own bias.  There are many times I've wanted to hear God and couldn't, but it was probably me being the problem.  There were times I wanted to hear, but I was also afraid to hear. There are also variations in how we hear God.  For example, Moses hearing God at the burning bush.  Two qualities jump out at me about Moses. He was said to be the most humble man on the face of the earth (Num 12:3) and he had impaired speech (Exodus 4:10).  He was humble enough to handle the task, but assumed he was inadequate. However, God chose to validate him directly.  Saul, who became Paul, was different.  He was blinded (Acts 9:8-9).  As we discussed before, he was a Pharisee, and I believe the indication was that he needed to be humbled to listen.  We see that humility became a staple of his condition, and he goes as far as to call himself the "least of the apostles" because he persecuted the church of God (1 Cor 15:9).  Anyway, what I'm trying to say is he addresses us based on who we are and our condition.  Personally, I believe you can hear God, how I dunno.  So you asked if I can hear God.  Yes, there are times I can hear him very clearly.  There are also times when I can't, but it is often my unwillingness to listen.

I will share an event from my life from maybe around 1 1/2 to 2 years ago.  I was talking to a lady friend and she was going through a difficult time.  We had some things in common.  She taught literature, and I think I mentioned I am a publisher and a writer.  We are also both Christians, but there was conflict in our communication at times.  Parts of it were her personal struggles, and I'm sure part of it was me and my own ignorance at times.  Regardless, one day we were casually talking and I felt this overwhelming need to tell her that "God wants to be her anchor", and it was very specific.  I questioned it at first, but after a minute I told her.  Despite my doubt and concern about sounding crazy, it made perfect sense to her.  An "anchor" was was personal symbol or crest her family used to associate with God, and she went on to tell me that as such she had a tattoo of an anchor.  So take it has you will, but I had no clue of the significance beforehand or attributed any special meaning to an anchor, and beyond that and to this day I don't attribute any special meaning to them.

Likewise, I had a similar experience tonight and concerning you no less, but it was somewhat different.  I woke up around 3 am and didn't know what to do, so I decided to walk the dogs.  While I walking, I was considering our conversations, probably because of the depth of them, but I also heard God as I was walking.  How I would describe it wasn't something that was audible, but hearing a voice inside on how to approach talking to you.  It was actually very positive.  Not so much to look at you an an opponent, but more like a fishing buddy.  Someone you can talk to and consider, but equally the idea that no matter what is said, you can enjoy their company.  So that's my story.

Ahh... That which you attribute to an external cause, may not be so external.
The human mind is a fascinating thing. So complex and strange... How one little bit failing can seem to cause an inner duality. Sometimes, it's a 50/50 thing and we call it Schizophrenia... but it need not be so clear.
That's my view of such stories where people get these "inner voices". It's the brain doing it, but your conscious self chooses to attribute it to god, given that it's the thing that makes  sense, from your upbringing and society around you.

-I can't speak for everybody. I think you hear about it a lot in modern times because of Israel becoming a nation again in 1948.  In Matt 24 Jesus talked about knowing the season, and he told the Parable of the Fig Tree, which mentions how the branches of a fig tree predict summer.  So despite not knowing the exact day, the season is indicated.

- If there are churches with these images, then they are the ones making the choice to have those images.  I can't think of any requirement that would demand they do so.

- I wouldn't call it "external", but rather quite the opposite.  If God dwells within us, then I think it's fair to say that God will likely communicate to us from within.  If I inject bias and call it being schizo, then I am creating a problem.  I believe if something is questionable, you bounce it off scripture and see if one reflects the other.  God will confirm God.

[CDF47]

Still the words of men, bozo.

And words of the most disreputable and worthless men, believable only by bozos.

 Says you, a fallible man. When you give an account, will those be your words?

Romans 14:11-13 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Yes, I let them know earlier that every knee will bow.

[Anomalocaris]

 Says you, a fallible man. When you give an account, will those be your words?

Romans 14:11-13 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Yes, I let them know earlier that every knee will bow.

Ah, yes, the self-styled humble messenger of god speaks.  And in that self-appointed role he imaging himself to no longer be the fallible and particularly gullible and ignorant human being he is.

Suddenly it seems more clear why so many confused and ignorant people have word of god to spread.

[CDF47]

The proof is in the information properties of DNA.

Exactly how is that proof that the information could not have arisen through natural means?  DNA may be considered to contain information, but that alone says nothing about how that information did or could have arisen.  Simply asserting that it is proof does nothing but kick the can down the road.  Now you need to explain how the (alleged) presence of information in DNA is proof that it could not have arisen naturally.  I keep asking you for reasons and evidence, and now you've simply circled back to your original claim that DNA is proof.  By itself, information in DNA isn't evidence one way or another, it just is what it is.  In order for it to be evidence for something, such as the impossibility of its natural production, you need to supply some reasons why it is evidence that it could not arise through natural means.  Simply blurting out "information" and "DNA" and "complexity" accomplishes nothing as it has already been shown that information and complexity can arise naturally.  If you're simply asserting that DNA couldn't arise naturally because DNA can't arise naturally, then you're simply begging the question.  You need actual reasons for your belief, and so far you have provided none.

So in what way is the presence of information properties in DNA proof that it could not have arisen through natural means?

The information in DNA is not only complex, it is also functional.  You forget that part.  See the video in my signature for how it works.  It works like a machine code programming a manufacturing plant.

[pocaracas]

- If there are churches with these images, then they are the ones making the choice to have those images.  I can't think of any requirement that would demand they do so.

Have you ever seen a Christian church without a cross?

- I wouldn't call it "external", but rather quite the opposite.  If God dwells within us, then I think it's fair to say that God will likely communicate to us from within.  If I inject bias and call it being schizo, then I am creating a problem.  I believe if something is questionable, you bounce it off scripture and see if one reflects the other.  God will confirm God.

Don't you think you're injecting bias when starting with god?
If you start with god, how can you end with anything different?
"God will confirm God" is circular and not a valid way to reason out if it is indeed God.
What if there was no scripture? What if you were living in a place and time where you had no access to scripture?

I'll give you the fact that God is within you... within me. The concept of god, that is.
No God has ever shown the ability to communicate with me. And I'm sure there are many many like me. And I doubt that it's just because of a lack of belief. Why would a god hide from someone who simply doesn't believe? What is the power of belief to a god?
But... what is the power of belief to your psyche?... ah... it is a very great power. One that cannot be discounted, ever.

[CDF47]

- If there are churches with these images, then they are the ones making the choice to have those images.  I can't think of any requirement that would demand they do so.

Have you ever seen a Christian church without a cross?

- I wouldn't call it "external", but rather quite the opposite.  If God dwells within us, then I think it's fair to say that God will likely communicate to us from within.  If I inject bias and call it being schizo, then I am creating a problem.  I believe if something is questionable, you bounce it off scripture and see if one reflects the other.  God will confirm God.

Don't you think you're injecting bias when starting with god?
If you start with god, how can you end with anything different?
"God will confirm God" is circular and not a valid way to reason out if it is indeed God.
What if there was no scripture? What if you were living in a place and time where you had no access to scripture?

I'll give you the fact that God is within you... within me. The concept of god, that is.
No God has ever shown the ability to communicate with me. And I'm sure there are many many like me. And I doubt that it's just because of a lack of belief. Why would a god hide from someone who simply doesn't believe? What is the power of belief to a god?
But... what is the power of belief to your psyche?... ah... it is a very great power. One that cannot be discounted, ever.

God is not hiding from us.  He is not as involved with us as He was prior to the fall when He had a direct relationship with man.

[Abaddon_ire]

It works like a machine code programming a manufacturing plant.

No, it doesn't. Stop propagating that lie.

[Anomalocaris]

Have you ever seen a Christian church without a cross?


Don't you think you're injecting bias when starting with god?
If you start with god, how can you end with anything different?
"God will confirm God" is circular and not a valid way to reason out if it is indeed God.
What if there was no scripture? What if you were living in a place and time where you had no access to scripture?

I'll give you the fact that God is within you... within me. The concept of god, that is.
No God has ever shown the ability to communicate with me. And I'm sure there are many many like me. And I doubt that it's just because of a lack of belief. Why would a god hide from someone who simply doesn't believe? What is the power of belief to a god?
But... what is the power of belief to your psyche?... ah... it is a very great power. One that cannot be discounted, ever.

God is not hiding from us.  He is not as involved with us as He was prior to the fall when He had a direct relationship with man.

There fact that you think see a rose in a pile of shit because someone told you the rose god said seeing rose in a pile of shit will provide you with salvation does not mean there is a rose and much less that it is not hiding from us.   It just means there is no rose and you are delusional or disgracefully gullible, or both.