DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Atheist claim there was nothing which created everything.  It's all random or it's designed.  Simple as that.

Both of those statements are simple......and they're also simply false.

Would you like to know more?

I am already familiar with the undirected processes of natural selection acting on random mutations.  The processes are either blind and dumb or intelligent.  I believe they are intelligent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Both of those statements are simple......and they're also simply false.

Would you like to know more?

I am already familiar with the undirected processes of natural selection.  The processes are either blind and dumb or intelligent.  I believe they are intelligent.

Your beliefs are likely in contradiction with biological facts*...but, first, would you like to know why both of the statements  I responded too are as wrong as they could possibly be, or not?

*I'm sure we could arrive at a mutually amenable value for "intelligent" in the context of evolutionary processes by reference to facts rather than the articles of your faith...but this wouldn't describe your god, so I fail to see the point. Evolution is, for example, intelligent.... when I'm breeding plants. Is that the sort of relationship you expect your god has with us? One giant human plantation?

[drfuzzy]

Out of all of the versions of "your religion", how do you know you picked the right one? 

What evidence do you have to prove that your religion is right and all others are wrong?

It is based on the Holy Scriptures.  I use the best discernment I can to determine the text but I realize I am a fallible human.

---

---

It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter. It's still not "God" if the designer evolved naturally or if the designer itself had a designer.

It's not about being pragmatic. It's about being accurate. For all intents and purposes it may as well be deemed "God" but that's not the same thing as it actually being God. A being outside the universe is not something that there can ever be any empirical evidence of.

---

---

Maybe or maybe not but the signatures of that being can be detected within the creation (i.e. highly sophisticated machines in the cell, advanced digital code in DNA, fine-tuned universe, 0 space at the Big Bang,.....).

---

---

---

Nope

---

---

Yes, digital code is not always binary 0s and 1s.  This is a 4-digit digital code.

---

---

---

Either this guy is a sock, or he's just repeating what was already said in another thread about this.

---

---

Just pulled those figures from the web from a Pew study.

---

---

Again, you're asserting what you ought to be supporting.

What you're basically saying is 'All the X we've seen up until now has been caused by W. Here is a new X that is not clearly caused by W. But we know X is caused by W, so this X must be caused by W as well.'

---

It's not a very good argument, and it doesn't help that in this case the X in question (DNA) is quite dissimilar in important ways from the previous X's it's being compared to (language, computer programs, human artifacts).

---

Yeah, this X in question is the most highly complex and specific in the known universe.

---

---

So.......... you really don't have answers for me, just believe. That's the best you can offer? You can't tell me which jesus is the right one?

This is what taught me that christianity was bullshit.

---

The Jesus of the Bible.  I would recommend you follow the One you read about in the Scriptures and to make sure to read it yourself (all of it).

"It is based on the Holy Scriptures.  I use the best discernment I can to determine the text but I realize I am a fallible human."
     Interesting that there are so many sects and denominations based on that one book.  Interesting that you can get a dozen preachers in a room and they will nearly come to blows over their personal "discernment" of a single scripture passage.  

"Yeah, this X in question is the most highly complex and specific in the known universe."
     And if that X is ever proved to exist, or better yet, proves its own existence without the need for a book or human mouthpiece with a con-artist complex and an active imagination, that will be worth some attention.  However, we have seen many thousands of years of abject failure so far, and "X" is utterly irrelevant to daily life.  

"The Jesus of the Bible.  I would recommend you follow the One you read about in the Scriptures and to make sure to read it yourself (all of it)."
     I was raised Fundamentalist Pentecostal.  I have read all of the Bible many, many times and I have most of it memorized.  Jesus of Nazareth, if he existed, was a street preacher who was upset at the Religious Leaders of his day.  The Bible is a ridiculously flawed collection of old fairy tales.  It proves nothing except that the books were written by man and the God described in its pages is a reprehensible work of fiction.  Yet people still seem to think that it is somehow special and that all that they have to do is quote verses to gain control over others.  Perhaps you should read it as you would any other piece of literature - as something that you are allowed to question.  

The Bible is no proof of god, it is simply the claim.  It's the same as saying that Voldemort exists because the Harry Potter books tell his story.

[Joods]

You still didn't answer my second question. What evidence do you have to prove that your religion is right and all others are wrong? Saying you are a fallible human doesn't provide proof. It just tells me your opinion of yourself. 

---

---

Ahh yes. The very same study that was listed in another thread on here. Convenient.

Based on the creation story versus other religions.  Being the only religion that says we cannot save ourselves, the Son of God had to do it.  Based on the historical and Biblical Jesus.  Based on my faith in the Lord Jesus.  I follow and believe in the Holy Scriptures.

The creation "story" is not provable evidence. 
Saying the "son of god had to do it" is not provable evidence.
Prove there is a historical or a biblical Jesus.
Your faith is not proof of anything other than your opinion and last I checked, opinions are NOT facts. 

Since you follow and believe in the "Holy Scriptures", please answer the following:

Have you ever eaten a cheeseburger? 
If you are married, does your wife currently have short hair? 
How many times have you ever been married or divorced? 
Have you ever worn a bathing suit or a jogging suit?
Are you okay with your god being the first to commit genocide?

We'll start there.

[LostLocke]

Atheist claim there was nothing which created everything.

Nope. Atheism has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

It's all random...

Nope.

[Minimalist]

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly.  Nor is atheism any comment on something coming from nothing in a biological context.  Evolutionary biology is a description of what -happens- to existent life.  Some of those processes are randomized (none are truly random) some are not.  Some of those processes are intelligent, most are not.

In point of fact, religious nitwits are the people who say those things™...both as misunderstandings of atheism and evolutionary theory...and as the articles of their faiths.

All "atheists say" is that they don;t believe in your god....you';re the one foisting psuedoscience onto the poor fucker. I can;t imagine how that;s going to help the case for his existence. How do you think it might do that CDF?

[Mister Agenda]

Yeah, this X in question is the most highly complex and specific in the known universe.

Yes, that's another way this X is different from all the other 'X's' you're analogizing it with.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet not different at all in the context of whether or not he believes a god is required for the existence of either.

It;s a deliciously tight knot. How complexity, specifically.... indicates a god when the smart and the dumb info both need gods is another mystery of god, I reckon.

[CDF47]

I am already familiar with the undirected processes of natural selection.  The processes are either blind and dumb or intelligent.  I believe they are intelligent.

Your beliefs are likely in contradiction with biological facts*...but, first, would you like to know why both of the statements  I responded too are as wrong as they could possibly be, or not?

*I'm sure we could arrive at a mutually amenable value for "intelligent" in the context of evolutionary processes by reference to facts rather than the articles of your faith...but this wouldn't describe your god, so I fail to see the point.  Evolution is, for example, intelligent.... when I'm breeding plants.  Is that the sort of relationship you expect your god has with us?  One giant human plantation?

No, I believe in the God of the Bible that wants relationship with us.