RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
May 14, 2018 at 7:42 pm
(This post was last modified: May 14, 2018 at 7:55 pm by CDF47.)
(May 14, 2018 at 6:18 pm)Hammy Wrote:(May 14, 2018 at 5:21 pm)CDF47 Wrote: Micro-evolution is part of the implementation of the design used by the Creator. Again, DNA proves design.
You haven't shown how it proves design at all. You've just asserted your incredulity at the idea of DNA coming about without a designer.
You don't have an argument. What you have is this:
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
DNA is too complex to exist without being designed.
(May 14, 2018 at 6:26 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:CDF47 Wrote: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.
CDF47 Wrote: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?
CDF47 Wrote: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.
CDF47 Wrote: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.
CDF47 Wrote: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.
CDF47 Wrote: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?
CDF47 Wrote: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?
CDF47 Wrote: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?
CDF47 Wrote: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?
CDF47 Wrote: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?
CDF47 Wrote: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!'
(May 14, 2018 at 7:36 pm)Joods Wrote:(May 13, 2018 at 9:25 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The US Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are two of the greatest documents ever written. Our rights are guaranteed in the Constitution, unlike a Democracy where majority rules and we already discussed the potential problems with that.bold mine.
You contradict yourself. Do you even pay attention to what you post? You do realize that the United States Government IS a Democratic government, right?
Do you also understand that Hillary Clinton won the majority vote? Our deeply flawed Electoral College made sure to fuck that up by giving the presidency to Trumptard, so no - the person who won the majority of the votes cast, didn't get to be in office.
The US government type is a constitutional republic.
Yes, I realize Hilary lost the electoral vote but won the majority vote.
Please don't refer to people as tards which is a derogatory term for retards who have mental health problems.
Crazy how we somehow went from debating DNA information to discussing the different government types of the world...LOL. I can't remember how that happened or who brought it up first.