DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Guard of Guardians]

vulcanlogician wrote:

Not true. One can defend one's thesis from bad objections.

 
Yes, but if they are truly bad objections, one needn’t feel obliged to do so.  Substantive or interesting objections are one thing, but nonsense rhetorical objections are something entirely different.
 
 
 
vulcanlogician wrote:

It can even be a fruitive exercise on occasion.

 
It can be a fruitful exercise, but that’s up the individual’s judgement, as it is more often a waste of time.  Responding to every silly objection thrown out, largely by those not genuinely interested in answers, will simply get one bogged down in tangential issues that don’t ultimately matter.  The main and plain points should remain the focus, at least as much as is possible.
 
 
 
vulcanlogician wrote:

Like when there are common misconceptions.

 
I agree.  Misconceptions in atheist circles and in culture in general are pretty rampant when it comes to Christianity.  Most people are responding to things they picked up at a particular church or some charicature that doesn’t really correspond to Christianity in the historic sense.  Having said that, one has to wisely pick his/her battles.
 
 
 
vulcanlogician wrote:

I don't accept that information only originates from mind(s)? Can you offer some proof of that?

 
It’s just a case of abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation.  In addition, we simply have no examples of information that we know originated from non-mind(s).  There are areas, like Neo-Darwinian Evolution, where this is thought and often assumed to be the case, but it’s never been able to be demonstrated as such.  Absent some significant proof or demonstration that information does or even can be produced from non-mind(s), we are entirely justified in believing that the best explanation is the one that provides a cause which is actually known to produce the thing in question (i.e. information).  And of course, we know on the basis of our everyday uinform and repeated experience, that information routinely arises from mind(s).  The question really is, why would anyone need additional proof that such a thing is the case when our everyday common-sense experience screams out that such a thing is a clear and evident reality, onstensibly recognizeable to all?


 

vulcanlogician wrote:

And it looks like you simply read my post on the first page and replied to my comment there. What's up with that? I insist that you read the entire thread before we continue this conversation… just to make sure we're on the same page.

 
And no, I won’t be reading 1,300+ pages of comments and responses in order to make sure that we are …on the same page.  I responded to the original post, which was my intention from the start.  You may certainly choose not to respond to me any further, if that’s a problem.

---

Why would that need a defense?   

It wouldn't if he kept his uneducated theories to himself  ..... however people like him (and you), that throw shit out with no proof, need to offer evidence or expect to be challenged 

How do you know that his supposed theory is of the uneducated variety?  I don't recall anyone throwing "shit" either.  If you need proof of what he said, I'm fairly confident that any middle school or high school level biology textbook will provide sufficient proof or evidence of DNA as containing information/instructions that are essential for the growth and function of the organism from which it comes.  It's ironic that you would label what he said uneducated, when you're apparently not familiar with the basics of DNA.