RE: The code that is DNA
December 11, 2019 at 2:41 pm
(This post was last modified: December 11, 2019 at 3:55 pm by Simon Moon.)
(December 9, 2019 at 4:50 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: Simon Moon, how boring.
The only requirement to converse in any subject is a brain not a PhD. If you're not interested in these conversations, at the very least let those that are continue to participate.
If you'd like, I'll forward you the PDFs for my university's biology and genetics textbooks. I look forward to hearing from you when you feel more qualified.
Let me respond to this a different way, that might make my previous point a bit clearer.
So, let's say that Yukon Jack comes to an atheist forum, with quite a few random atheists as members, very few of which claim to have any expert level knowledge of molecular biology, DNA, etc. But neither does Jack have that level of expertise.
Lets say, he is even able to convince a few atheists on the forum with his argument, that there was a creator deity or deities responsible for the complexity of DNA. What does that prove? As far as I can tell, all it would prove would be, that they were convinced for bad reasons. Argument from ignorance being the main bad reason ("I can't figure out how DNA could have come about via natural means, so a god must be responsible"). Another bad reason would be, the claim that complexity is a sign of design (when it is not).
What kind of victory is that? A guy who is not an expert in the subject under discussion, convinces other people who are not experts in the subject, that a god designed DNA.
To bring my expertise back to the discussion, that would be a bit like, a non expert on how routers work, convincing a bunch of other non experts, that 'IP fairies' are responsible for moving IP packets around the network.
This is the problem I pointed out in my other post you commented on.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
