DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[pocaracas]

Human experience... many religious folk posit too much weight on this.
Human experience has many problems when one tries to ascertain how the world around us operates. It relies too much on our intuitions, which have come about through millennia of evolution at our scale. We are not equipped to deal with the quantum world, nor with the vastness of the Cosmos.
Certainly, it was a good starting point, but I think humanity now has the tools to confidently move beyond.

If you want to describe your feelings towards some event, "blown away" conveys the message quite well. But if you want to convey the event itself, so that others may appreciate it for themselves, then I think you need to be as quantitative as possible. For the quantitative scales (weight, luminosity, electrical charge, etc...) are the same for everyone, while "being blown away" isn't so.

A divine entity that is seemingly only a shared concept among believers isn't really something one can develop a relationship with, I think. Unless you're into one-way relationships. I'm sure many have gone that route for Indiana Jones or Wilma Flintstone, or even for real people like (and I'm about to show my age) Claudia Schiffer... but are those real relationships that can convey accurate information about the other entity?

What brings forth the question, "What does it mean to be human?"

I'd go with.... is reality still there in the absence of all human/conscious minds?

Qualitative data can be a prerequisite to quantitative data.  In regard to science. I have a dual science degree, yet sometimes I don't want to be the scientist. Sometimes I want to go outside and play with my dogs. Sometimes I want to play a video game. Sometimes I want to spend time with family.  They can all apply to each other, but sometimes the science gets put on the back burner.  I can visit my mom and talk about cultural trends or quantum mechanics, but it adds little to that relationship and she's not likely to understand anyway.  I would say the relational aspect supersedes it.  I remember in the movie the Matrix, there was a scene when one guy sells out the "good guys" and his payment was bliss.  He could've continued to understand the Matrix, but he preferred the product of such instead.  So which is wrong?  What are the values?  Is a quantifiable conscious better than a content conscious.  Neither, because it is the choice of the individual.  I can't say your decision is optimal for me, and vice versa, and the determining factor of those choices is ourselves.

I'd say it depends on the purpose.
If your purpose is to claim something about reality, then you'll have to apply all the science you can, for that is what science is all about: figuring out what reality is like and how it works.
If your purpose is to enjoy life, then you can live in your world, with your dogs, your mom, your video games and never need to care much about the intricacies of reality. Just go with intuition, for that works well enough.

The trouble arises when people intermingle these and claim something about reality based on their intuitions. Intuitions which are well known to produce faulty results in certain extreme conditions... such as those that we see here on this thread "DNA proves the Existence of a designer" - It looks like a super complex machine, so it must be designed, so, knowing that no human conscience was around at the time DNA came into being, there must have been an external designer, so let's call that god and move on. Right? This is what CDF has been saying all along, right? All the while, others have been pointing out that the evolutionary mechanism can, without any guidance or forethought, without intentionality or design, it can produce the very complexity we observe in the DNA machinery. It's difficult to conceive of all the steps that go from abiogenesis to DNA, and there is still much work left to be done in this field to show how it can be done, so this option is felt as impossible by many, given that their intuition is not sufficient to deal with the concepts involved. If evolution is impossible, then design is the only possibility, or so CDF claims.