DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Anomalocaris]

It has been well demonstrated that even in the case where any reduction to an organ prevents it from fulfilling what seem to be its observer to be its only function, the organ in fact has served or can still serve other functions that might be mistakenly judged secondary.   Example of this includes the bird like wings in therapod dinosaurs, and the carapace eye on certain deep sea crustaceans.   So to prove something to be irreducible complex, not only must one demonstrate the organ can not serve its present function if reduced from its present form, one must also demonstrate it could not serve any other conceivable functions at all in any of its possible evolutionary paths.

Since it is essentially impossible to deduce without evidence all possible evolutionary paths leading up the present organ, Demonstrating some feature to be irreducible complex in the biological sense is a logically impossible task.   The basis of irreducible complex is the assumption that if one is not clever enough to conceive of a feasible evolutionary development path, then none could exist.   In other words It presuppose where the observer is ignorant, there is no knowledge to be had.

So irreducible complexity is not wrong.  It is not EVEN wrong.   It is not a proposition sufficiently formed to be even theoretically capable of being assigned the status of right or wrong.   It is a pure useless bullshiting piece of smoke screen for creationists.

Which is perfectly fitting, as the creed of creationism assumes ignorance is king.

The god of Christian is nothing but ignorance wrapped in a golden cloak, assigned personalities that are projection of the most flaccid and the most unmentionably disgraceful aspects of common psychology, and stood up as a figurehead and scarecrow in the way of any discovery that might discomfort the small, needy and conceited minds.

The article below provides better information on irreducible complexity:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...php/id/840

If you can’t even put into your own words as simple an idiotic a concept of intelligent design so as to at least set up the framework for working through what its shortcomings might be, and have to resort to pasting link to idiotic creationist shill websites as if you truly imagined they could offer anything that we have not considered more throroughly than authors of such tripe would ever imagine, then you are truly a waste of time.

[The Valkyrie]

Wait!

Behe???

😂😁😅😆😄

[CDF47]

It is too sophisticated to come from the dumb environment.  It comes from advanced intelligence.  Design is detectable.

Those are all unsupported assertions. You have to explain WHY sophisticated information can't come from the 'dumb environment'. How sophisticated does something have to be before it can't come from the 'dumb environment'? It would be helpful if there were units of sophistication that could be used to measure whether something was too sophisticated to come from the 'dumb environment'. Then, MAYBE, you could start to be able to justify your claims about advanced intelligence and detectability.

Hint: What you're calling 'detectability' is inference, and the basis for the inference is intuition. Intuition can lead to interesting avenues of investigation, but it's not evidence or proof.

---

They are about molecular machines.  They are short videos that show how some molecular machines operate.  There are a number of good videos on this.

And what's with all the videos? They're hardly ever germane to the topic at hand. No one said that molecular machines aren't wonderful or don't exist. We said that they are not irreducibly complex, and videos that aren't making a case for irreducible complexity are irrelevant and just waste our time. We can find cool videos on our own without your help if we want to.

---

Provide a post number where I lied.

#2059

---

I believe you are spiritually blinded.

And I believe that severe confirmation bias causes you to think you're right even though you can't support your assertions, or even explain why your conclusions follow from your premises.

---

There are a number of causes for spiritual blindness; such as pride, ignorance, following blind leaders, caring what other people think rather than the truth, rebellion against God,...  When you are spiritually blind you are separated from God and you continue to lie to yourself.  

The spiritually blind must cry out to God for help but often their pride stops them.  Many remain willfully ignorant.  They must lose their pride, humble themselves, and seek the light, which is Jesus Christ for salvation.

Thanks for that explanation. According to that, my assessment of your problem is that you are 'spiritually blind' due to pride and ignorance.

Dr. Meyer used the same scientific method as Darwin to show that intelligent design is the best argument for information in DNA, molecular machines,...  It is not just an assertion.

Someone actually did say they weren't machines and the videos do show they are irreducibly complex.  You are just afraid to watch them because you will see your whole atheist worldview come crashing down in the face of the intricacy of the molecular machine.

I see nothing wrong with post 2059.

Design can be inferred.  See the following book on design inference by William Dembski: The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory).

I am a believer so I am not spiritually blind.  That verse is for unbelievers.

[Anomalocaris]

Irreducible complexity does not even rise to the level of bunk.  To qualify as bunk it must make unique testable prediction.   It predicts nothing, and it solely expresses the opinion that it’s advocates are so stupid they can even imagine how others can ever be not quite as stupid as they are.

He will claim behe's lame ass prediction . That never actually came true and was easily refuted or he will go back his fallacy of "you have not found i precursor i will accept therefore there isn't one". Pure fallacy .

A prediction of “you will never find” is no prediction at all unless one waits to the end of time.

A prediction is “this is what you will find”. A unique prediction is “this is what you will find because....,and no one else will forecast this find because...”.

[Amarok]

Dr. Meyer used the same scientific method as Darwin to show that intelligent design is the best argument for information in DNA, molecular machines,...  It is not just an assertion.

No he didn't and yes it nothing but an assertion . Meyers is a fraud.

Someone actually did say they weren't machines and the videos do show they are irreducibly complex.  You are just afraid to watch them because you will see your whole atheist worldview come crashing down in the face of the intricacy of the molecular machine.

Nope because the video's don't support your case . And there is no such thing as an atheist worldview .

I see nothing wrong with post 2059.

Yes there is it's wrong 

Design can be inferred.  See the following book on design inference by William Dembski: The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory).

Dembski is a fraud and his probability argument has already been refuted by real scientists .There is no design inference .It's a crock of shit .

I am a believer so I am not spiritually blind.  That verse is for unbelievers.

Nop your just blind

[CDF47]

I'm going to throw out a bit of info.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that makes an argument invalid. The conclusion can still be correct, but it does not follow. All fallacies are essentially forms of 'non sequitur'. For example, I am a male human, male humans are Mister Agenda, therefore I am Mister Agenda. My conclusion is correct, but the argument I used to reach it is flawed due to the fallacy it contains. Fallacies can be formal or informal. An informal fallacy is one in which the flaw in reasoning isn't due to the form of the argument, that is, the argument may be valid in symbolic form, but flawed when it comes to specific cases.

An argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy in which an appeal is made to lack of contrary evidence to assert something is true. Thousands of people go missing every year and we never find out what happens to them. Since we don't know what happened to them, it must be aliens.

The argument from incredulity, aka 'the divine fallacy', is an informal fallacy where you make your inability to comprehend something your argument. I can't understand it, so it must not be true. I don't understand how it could not be true, so it must be true. I don't understand where lightning comes from, and Thor makes more sense to me, so it must be Thor. In my opinion this is a type of argument from ignorance.  

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy in which sufficiency is confused with necessity. If A, then B. B, therefore A. If God, then the universe. The universe, therefore God. If a designer, then DNA, DNA, therefore a designer. If you own a ton of gold, you are rich. You are rich, therefore you own a ton of gold.  

If you use fallacies, it doesn't make your conclusion wrong, but it does mean that what you have provided to support your conclusion does not actually support it.

DNA contains information.  Information always comes from an intelligence.  DNA information is designed.

---

There is a review process for edits and some are changed back on topics like this.  Here is a non-wiki source (https://www.nature.com/subjects/molecula...and-motors).  There are many others. Below is a video of the flagellum motor:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFq_MGf3sbk

These don't  support your case .And considering nature is anti creationist .....

It shows how the machines function.

---

---

God's plan for humanity.  His will.

How does this "god" implement the "plan"?
What is the technique?
What things does it use?

His will is His divine plan.  He implements His plan through His divine providence.  He is in control of the world although He allows free will choices for humans to either accept Him as their God or not.

[Amarok]

It shows how the machines function.

It does not support your ID bollocks nor is nature  a legit science site a supporter of ID garbage in fact it's staunchly against ID in favour of REAL science .

[Anomalocaris]

I'm going to throw out a bit of info.

A fallacy is an error in reasoning that makes an argument invalid. The conclusion can still be correct, but it does not follow. All fallacies are essentially forms of 'non sequitur'. For example, I am a male human, male humans are Mister Agenda, therefore I am Mister Agenda. My conclusion is correct, but the argument I used to reach it is flawed due to the fallacy it contains. Fallacies can be formal or informal. An informal fallacy is one in which the flaw in reasoning isn't due to the form of the argument, that is, the argument may be valid in symbolic form, but flawed when it comes to specific cases.

An argument from ignorance is an informal fallacy in which an appeal is made to lack of contrary evidence to assert something is true. Thousands of people go missing every year and we never find out what happens to them. Since we don't know what happened to them, it must be aliens.

The argument from incredulity, aka 'the divine fallacy', is an informal fallacy where you make your inability to comprehend something your argument. I can't understand it, so it must not be true. I don't understand how it could not be true, so it must be true. I don't understand where lightning comes from, and Thor makes more sense to me, so it must be Thor. In my opinion this is a type of argument from ignorance.  

Affirming the consequent is a formal fallacy in which sufficiency is confused with necessity. If A, then B. B, therefore A. If God, then the universe. The universe, therefore God. If a designer, then DNA, DNA, therefore a designer. If you own a ton of gold, you are rich. You are rich, therefore you own a ton of gold.  

If you use fallacies, it doesn't make your conclusion wrong, but it does mean that what you have provided to support your conclusion does not actually support it.

DNA contains information.  Information always comes from an intelligence.  DNA information is designed.

---

These don't  support your case .And considering nature is anti creationist .....

It shows how the machines function.

Information always come from intelligence?




So i am informed by the dumbest fuck i’ve ever encountered.

Intelligence is nothing more than information manipulating information.   Where did the original information that is supposedly your god come from?

[Amarok]

DNA contains information.  

Even if true it proves nothing 

Information always comes from an intelligence.  

Assertion 

DNA information is designed.

Baseless conclusion

[CDF47]

What do atheists think, that the DNA code wrote itself.  That is something most software engineers would laugh at.

That’s why software engineers are not scientists.

Being an engineer means one could recite some of what science has discovered that has immediate application to a task.   It is somewhat like a Christian could recite the Bible, the Muslim could recite the Koran, the Buddhist can chant a mantra or you can chant the nonsense about irreducible complexity, they were told what is true and how to apply it, and have no real ability to replicate, validate or extend the process of original discovery.  

But being an engineer does not even begin to bridge the gap to actually doing science, which is a process of active discovery and validatiom of models that can demonstrably provide predictive analogues to the going’s on in the real world, and is thus quite unlike a Christian reciting the Bible, the Muslim reciting the Koran, the Buddhist chanting a mantra or you chanting irreducible complexity.

A software engineer know it takes a programmer to write a code.  They see a code in DNA and know it didn't write itself.  It's that intuitive.