DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Mister Agenda]

There is highly complex and specific information in DNA which can only come from a super intelligence.  The universe is also fine-tuned and had a beginning with the Big Bang.  These are three key features of design.  There are tons of others, like the body plan of living systems,...  Information in DNA is the proof though.

The bolded part is your claim. Where's your evidence of it?

And we've already spoken about the beginning of our cosmos not necessarily being the beginning of our universe, did you forget already?

You can't just say 'information in DNA is the proof' and be convincing. You have to explain WHY it's the proof. And you never even try, you're just dumbfounded that we don't take your world for it and trot out another link on how amazingly complicated DNA is.

---

Again, by the same criteria, we should infer that DNA was designed by people with physical brains, using technology. Why is that not convincing to you?

Because, where did the people that designed the DNA come from?  They too would require design if they were advanced enough to design and build DNA.

But that super-intelligence isn't advanced enough to require design, am I right?

---

There is a evolutionary agenda they are following.  Breaking rank gets them targeted.

By a community that you've said yourself is majority theist. I don't find that plausible.

---

A straw man argument is one in which you propose the other person's position to be other than it actually is, in order to address something easier to defeat. An example would be all the times you claimed we believe everything came from nothing. The first time could have been an honest mistake. After our actual position was explained, every repetition of that claim was employment of a straw man fallacy.

I am being generous and assuming you're not too stupid to comprehend our actual position (not as atheists but as people who follow the science), that most of us go with the current science, which is that no one knows what was really going on before the initial expansion except that the universe was in a hot dense state before that. It could have been there forever in some form or another for all anyone knows. And Hawking may be wrong about the zero curvature, like he was wrong about some other things.

I wasn't intending that to be a straw man argument.  My point was from the best we know the universe came from nothing and now we have everything we see.  That was my point.  I will stop using it in that way.

I appreciate that. I don't agree that as best we know the universe came from nothing at all, but I could be wrong. There are plausible hypotheses on how it could have come from nearly nothing (quantum foam, which may not be able to not exist), so there's that.

---

I wasn't whining.  I don't care if there were a million atheists on this site.  You can't defeat truth in an argument.

When you bring up over and over how outnumbered you are, it REALLY sounds like whining.

One of the ways you tell something is true is if you can make an argument for it that is both sound and valid. That's not enough by itself for existential claims, you need evidence too (you can't just logic something into existence), but it's reasonable to ask that if something is actually true, it shouldn't be self-contradictory or contrary to observed reality and it should be able to stand up to reasonable skeptical scrutiny.

---

Or directed by the unconscious, blind, but dumbly intelligent power of natural selection, which can do one intelligent thing by brute force: discriminate against variations that are reproductively less successful than their competitors and thereby input information about the environment into genomes. No limit but the laws of nature have been found that limit this force.

Where does the information come from?  It must come from a super intelligence.  Still only two options.  Either intelligently or not intelligently designed.

As I said, the information comes from the reproductive environment. We can infer a lot about an organisms reproductive environment from its DNA because organisms adapt to their environment by the DNA of the most successful being selected for.

You accept 'microevolutionary adaptations', right? You get that they're adapting to their environment because variations that are more successful are preserved, right? That's how information about the environment gets into the genome.

And 'it must come from a super intelligence' is a claim that you haven't supported, so I am justified in dismissing that unsupported out of hand. If you don't give me a reason to take you seriously, why should I?

---

No one doubts it's relative accuracy, at least in the USA. It's relevance is in question. But anyway, why do you suppose so many believing scientists are trying to suppress ID?

Out of fear of reprisal.

But they're in the majority, right? There are more of them than there are mean old atheist scientists. Are theistic scientists particularly cowardly for some reason?

---

Psst! They don't like to be called 'retarded people'.

---

They can actually speak for themselves, you know.

Well they haven't and it is really annoying seeing them put down this way, over and over again.

But it's fine when you call them 'retarded people', eh?

---

Will you still think so when Muslims outnumber Christians globally in a few decades?

Nobody knows which religion will be the most populace in a few decades.  Only God knows that.

Demographic trends are pretty reliable. But okay, WOULD you still think so IF Muslims outnumber Christians in a few decades?

---

True democracies are also majority rule.  We have a constitutional republic which protects specified rights as stated in the Constitution.

Can you name one 'true democracy' that is a country that actually exists today?

---

You need that step from 'information inside DNA' and 'comes from a mind'. You never do that step. Because you can't. And you know it.

Not sure what you mean.

The 'why' part. As in 'why does the information inside DNA have to come from a mind?' Your arguments seem to add up to 'it just does, that's why!'