DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Grand Nudger]

---

I strongly doubt that you know enough about anything to disagree in any other way, but...again, I'm not interested in that silly shit.  

Can you provide attribution for this whole-hearted but empty headed statement, or not?

I've read enough in 1300 pages to know I disagree with most of what you say.  You do not believe in a Creator for some reason.  I disagree with this totally.

OFC you do, but you don't disagree with this on the basis of anything in evidence anymore than you believe it on the basis of the same.  You have beliefs...and that's okay....but it's a generally good practice to understand your own beliefs...what they are, and what they're not.   For the very last time, can you provide some source attribution for the claim that information only comes from minds, or is it just another silly thing you believe but can't place?

Yabut, "god" made the trees, too.  Ipso facto the information in the trees came from a mind, like all information, just not your mind.  It's the same ridiculous circle as before with design.

Show a person some undesigned thing, they swear it's also godesigned.  Show a person a designed thing that didn't come from any mind, they swear that the thing that did the designing came from a mind, and that that mind in turn came from a god.  All of this is obvious, ofc.  It's pointless to treat these beliefs as some sort of postulate that the holder will rationally adopt or abandon, because they simply aren't.  They have a history as part of a social movement, but beyond that, nada.  

Case in point...from the beginning of this thread (and any other "design" thread) a person can adopt a very accepting stance towards the putative claim.  That there is some design to life.  Sure, okay, we can take that and see that it's compatible, at least in principle, with the facts of biology.  We even understand the set of laws and circumstances that produced it - but this won't be acceptable to a creationist, that's not what they're talking about.  They don't think things were "designed" any more than they think "information" comes from minds.  Natural designs and information have nothing to do with what they're trying to express.  They think the answer to every question, and obviously so, is tinker goddidit.  

That's it, that's all.  The rest is fluff and filler.  LOL, a thousand pages of filler.  There's no example of design or information that they haven't already decided somehow ultimately comes from tinkergod, because their belief that all things ultimately come from the tinker god is the only thing informing these assertions - none of which...despite constant protestations to the contrary, are actually informing their belief in the tinkergod.

You still have not come remotely close to explaining the information bearing properties of DNA. All you do is go back to this example of things which are not all three components of complex and specified and functional.

That would be your work to do, not mine.  There's no requirement that anyone else be able to answer any question you have, and no ones failure to answer whatever question you might have lends any credence or support to your god beliefs.

That's just not how any of this works, lol.

That said, the failure of the ID movement to flesh out any of those terms and claims is what lead ID proponents to grudgingly accept and openly state that their assertion wasn't empirical in the first place.   Let's ignore this for a moment, though, to explore why none of this matters...not even to you.  Suppose we try to be as generous as possible to this claim?  DNA, and even more broadly, "life", is complex, specified, and functional.  Our current understanding of evolutionary biology necessitates just such a state of affairs.  It's equally plausible that there could have been simpler, unspecied, and less or non functional bits of life and dna.....but in any situation where these two representatives of generous hypothetical sets find themselves in competition, selection strongly favors the relatively complex, specialized, and more functional subject.  

So there you are, a way to generously assess this claim and put it in the context of known facts.  Notice that a tinkergod is entirely absent?  Will this satisfy you, is a natural complexity, specificity, and functionality acceptable?  Or are you instead not referring to anything like that?

-and all of this, every single word, has already been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters throughout these many pages. This ceased to be any sort of disagreement of fact over 1k pages ago. You have beliefs...and that's okay, but you should understand what they are, and what they aren't. You think a tinkergod made everything, but it isn't on account of any complexity, specificity, or functionality that you think so. It's something you read in a magic book, that you can't explain, and that you don't seem to be able to source otherwise and elsewhere. It's as trivially easy to respond to this faith based claim as it was on the first page, and in an impressive demonstration of just how inept this "argument" for tinkergod really is, it can be rejected by simply agreeing with every portion of the claim. Yes, DNA and even life itself is all of those things, and facts in evidence handily explain how this came to be so - none of those facts in evidence are god facts, and no god tinkering is required to yield this state of affairs.

You will, ofc, continue to believe and assert that all things are...somehow..finely pushed, including these explicitly mundane facts of biology, but that's all that this is or ever was. The droning reassertion of your magic book based faith.