DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I don't need you to educate me, nor did I ask.  If someone makes a claim, they should support it.  If you want to help them, that's your choice.  If you don't care to, and they don't, then I don't care either.  Not going on a hunt for information people claim exists if they don't even know where it exists.

Maybe I'm trying to educate you on the subject of evolution, because that was the claim? That evolution works and can provide a satisfactory explanation for how a self-replicating structure is also responsible for putting together a few proteins that enable it to perform that self-replication in ever more efficient ways?

Honestly, I no longer remember what the claim was... you manage to argue with people in such a way that it all gets lost in a swarm of useless words.
To prove this point, you're going to address this last phrase, while ignoring the question marks above where I basically ask (like many have) "what was the claim that you want proof for?"
And, just because I pointed it out, now you're going to do exactly that.
And, because I now added this, you might just decide to ignore this whole post.

Best of luck with that!

Has nothing to do with me.  I just want the "facts."  If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them.  Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them.  If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest.  Either something is or isn't.  If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.

I will be fair and say you usually do provide sources, and it's always appreciated.

---

[quote pid='1879124' dateline='1548193299']
...Nothing can falsify...

---

No, nothing can falsify it.

---

I think maybe you're both confusing each other.  He's suggesting something partially, but your conclusions are kinda "out there" too.

I don't want to speak for him, but looking at it based on what I know so far is him trying to say that the way DNA works as a code couldn't have happened without intelligent input.    In other words, the design of the code proves a Designer.

 

It's the "Nothing can falsify it" bit where CDF47 jumps the shark, M4X.
Though bravo for padding up and stepping onto the crease for CDF47.
Rather sad that he's already swung his bat back through the stumps.
Still... we'll see how long the thread continues to run.
[/quote]

I don't favor him over you,  if that's what you're suggesting.  I favor what is understood.  If you provide it, then no reason to disagree.

When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.

- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore

If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more.  As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing.  Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.

[pocaracas]

Maybe I'm trying to educate you on the subject of evolution, because that was the claim? That evolution works and can provide a satisfactory explanation for how a self-replicating structure is also responsible for putting together a few proteins that enable it to perform that self-replication in ever more efficient ways?

Honestly, I no longer remember what the claim was... you manage to argue with people in such a way that it all gets lost in a swarm of useless words.
To prove this point, you're going to address this last phrase, while ignoring the question marks above where I basically ask (like many have) "what was the claim that you want proof for?"
And, just because I pointed it out, now you're going to do exactly that.
And, because I now added this, you might just decide to ignore this whole post.

Best of luck with that!

Has nothing to do with me.  I just want the "facts."  If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them.  Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them.  If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest.  Either something is or isn't.  If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.

I will be fair and say you usually do provide sources, and it's always appreciated.

So... care to remind me what the claim was? I think that's the best way to move forward... if that is of interest.

[LadyForCamus]

@T0 Th3 M4X

Stating the current scientific consensus on some subject is not ‘making a claim.’  It’s simply an acknowledgement of a scientific fact. The claim, (hypothesis) has already been thoroughly tested by the scientific community, and elevated to the status of a fact, or a theory, if you’re talking about evolution. Respectfully, no one here is obligated to provide you with an education, and the weight of the work done on evolutionary theory does not rest on the backs of a couple of members on an internet forum.  We use science because it works!  Every time you get in your car, turn on your phone, take a pill, or eat a meal, you are relying on the efficacy of scientific inquiry. To deny it in one subject, when you accept it in every other aspect of your life, seems dishonest.  And, I don’t want to think that of you.

OTOH, CDF is making a claim that goes against the scientific consensus; that humans are designed, rather than evolved. 1. He bears the burden of proof in this argument. 2. Attempting to poke holes in evolution does not constitute a positive case for design.

@T0 Th3 M4X

I think you may have missed my post.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

@T0 Th3 M4X

Stating the current scientific consensus on some subject is not ‘making a claim.’  It’s simply an acknowledgement of a scientific fact. The claim, (hypothesis) has already been thoroughly tested by the scientific community, and elevated to the status of a fact, or a theory, if you’re talking about evolution. Respectfully, no one here is obligated to provide you with an education, and the weight of the work done on evolutionary theory does not rest on the backs of a couple of members on an internet forum.  We use science because it works!  Every time you get in your car, turn on your phone, take a pill, or eat a meal, you are relying on the efficacy of scientific inquiry. To deny it in one subject, when you accept it in every other aspect of your life, seems dishonest.  And, I don’t want to think that of you.

OTOH, CDF is making a claim that goes against the scientific consensus; that humans are designed, rather than evolved. 1. He bears the burden of proof in this argument. 2. Attempting to poke holes in evolution does not constitute a positive case for design.

@T0 Th3 M4X

I think you may have missed my post.

Sorry, I did miss it unintentionally.  I think if you miss a day, you get about 5 pages behind in this thread.

Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution.  I'm very aware of what it is considered.  I'm more interested in individual statements made pertaining to it.  If you lump fiction in with things that are factual, which is why I like to look at claims individually.  That way I'm not saying "yep" or "nope" to all of it.

I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus.  Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something.  IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science.  The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms.  For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous.  Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation.  Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed.  Like having a fly grow a third wing.  It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape.  Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring.  Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased.  Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile.   Like when you cross a horse and a donkey.  You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it.  So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.

So back to CDF, as I've stated I'm not siding with him or anyone else.  If someone has something, they can show it.  Let facts speak for themselves.

---

Has nothing to do with me.  I just want the "facts."  If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them.  Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them.  If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest.  Either something is or isn't.  If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.

I will be fair and say you usually do provide sources, and it's always appreciated.

So... care to remind me what the claim was? I think that's the best way to move forward... if that is of interest.

Honestly, I'm lost too at this point.  I think it was about 50 pages and 4 days ago.

[CDF47]

1k pages later and it still hasn't.

....and I can't change my position.  The facts are what they are.

---

Not sure what would falisfy some ID ideas.  That has nothing to do with the fact that the information bearing properties of DNA proves the Creator's existence.

Okay.. so you can't think of something that would/might falsify I.D.

Got it.

Could you go off and find some one who has gotten an idea of what would falsify I.D ?

Please post your definite thoughts on whether the ideas of I.D. can be falsified?

Here's the same idea from the evolution side of things.

To make the same claim about Evolution, one could make the claim that:

"To falsify the aspect of the fossil record bolstering the current theory of evolution one needs but find a rabbit fossil along side a trilobite."

Interestingly. You can run that idea kind of in reverse. Such that.

"I predict, using the theory of evolution and how fosils relate to said theory that if we go to certain rocks of a certain age we will find a fossil of this type of life form."

To whit the rpediction and subsequent finding of the fossil of Tiktaalik.

Hence, my previous question to yourself CDF47 about what the current ideas of I.D. might actually predict about life if we might find such on the moons of Jupiter or Saturn?

Regarding life outside this planet, so far the only intelligent life we have found is on Earth.  That may turn out to be the case in this universe.  We've been searching for a long time.  Not sure what we will find on those moons. 

Also, trying to change my position.  My position is related to DNA, not the ID movement.  I know you have that confused on purpose but just thought I'd remind you again.

---

@T0 Th3 M4X

I think you may have missed my post.

Sorry, I did miss it unintentionally.  I think if you miss a day, you get about 5 pages behind in this thread.

Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution.  I'm very aware of what it is considered.  I'm more interested in individual statements made pertaining to it.  If you lump fiction in with things that are factual, which is why I like to look at claims individually.  That way I'm not saying "yep" or "nope" to all of it.

I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus.  Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something.  IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science.  The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms.  For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous.  Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation.  Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed.  Like having a fly grow a third wing.  It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape.  Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring.  Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased.  Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile.   Like when you cross a horse and a donkey.  You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it.  So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.

So back to CDF, as I've stated I'm not siding with him or anyone else.  If someone has something, they can show it.  Let facts speak for themselves.

---

So... care to remind me what the claim was? I think that's the best way to move forward... if that is of interest.

Honestly, I'm lost too at this point.  I think it was about 50 pages and 4 days ago.

LOL

[The Grand Nudger]

1k pages later and it still hasn't.

....and I can't change my position.  The facts are what they are.

Both of those things are likely to be true even though your position isn't.  

I suppose it would be nice if one of them weren't..and that you were capable of changing your position.....but I often suspect that at least some people are too far gone for that.  

: shrugs :

[CDF47]

....and I can't change my position.  The facts are what they are.

Both of those things are likely to be true even though your position isn't.  

I suppose it would be nice if one of them weren't..and that you were capable of changing your position.....but I often suspect that at least some people are too far gone for that.  

: shrugs :

I am not too far gone for anything and I pray the same is true for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, you say that..but you did just say that you couldn't change your position, too.  Which one of those assholes is correct?

( a thousand pages worth of shit argument and demonstrations to the contrary having been completely ineffectual does back up the first assholes story against your new claim....so, there's that)

[Peebothuhlu]

Sorry, I did miss it unintentionally.  I think if you miss a day, you get about 5 pages behind in this thread.

Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution.  I'm very aware of what it is considered.  I'm more interested in individual statements made pertaining to it.  If you lump fiction in with things that are factual, which is why I like to look at claims individually.  That way I'm not saying "yep" or "nope" to all of it.

I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus.  Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something.  IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science.  The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms.  For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous.  Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation.  Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed.  Like having a fly grow a third wing.  It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape.  Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring.  Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased.  Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile.   Like when you cross a horse and a donkey.  You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it.  So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.

 Is this your level of understanding of the theory M4X?

---

Regarding life outside this planet, so far the only intelligent life we have found is on Earth.  That may turn out to be the case in this universe.  We've been searching for a long time.  Not sure what we will find on those moons. 

Also, trying to change my position.  My position is related to DNA, not the ID movement.  I know you have that confused on purpose but just thought I'd remind you again.

 So... you're not even claiming your ideas have a modicum of... 'Science' behind them?

They're just your own 'I think this is right' kind of thing?

 OKay... how might your idea be falsifed CDF47?

What might show that your idea that DNA is some how designed be falsifeid?

Heck... what might show that DNA is designed instead of it just being a long chemical (Polymer?) chain?

---

Has nothing to do with me.  I just want the "facts."  If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them.  Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them.  If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest.  Either something is or isn't.  If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.

I don't favor him over you,  if that's what you're suggesting.  I favor what is understood.  If you provide it, then no reason to disagree.

When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.

- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore

If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more.  As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing.  Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.
[/quote]

 No M4X, I was complementing you for helping support CDF47.

Again CDF47 is making claims. I am not.

Even if my position were nothing but pixie farts that does not mean that CDF47's position automatically becomes 'Right'.

I am not telling him he is wrong. I am asking him how his ideas are right.

And the missquoting thing is happening again.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Sorry, I did miss it unintentionally.  I think if you miss a day, you get about 5 pages behind in this thread.

Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution.  I'm very aware of what it is considered.  I'm more interested in individual statements made pertaining to it.  If you lump fiction in with things that are factual, which is why I like to look at claims individually.  That way I'm not saying "yep" or "nope" to all of it.

I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus.  Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something.  IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science.  The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms.  For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous.  Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation.  Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed.  Like having a fly grow a third wing.  It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape.  Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring.  Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased.  Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile.   Like when you cross a horse and a donkey.  You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it.  So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.

 Is this your level of understanding of the theory M4X?

---

Regarding life outside this planet, so far the only intelligent life we have found is on Earth.  That may turn out to be the case in this universe.  We've been searching for a long time.  Not sure what we will find on those moons. 

Also, trying to change my position.  My position is related to DNA, not the ID movement.  I know you have that confused on purpose but just thought I'd remind you again.

 So... you're not even claiming your ideas have a modicum of... 'Science' behind them?

They're just your own 'I think this is right' kind of thing?

 OKay... how might your idea be falsifed CDF47?

What might show that your idea that DNA is some how designed be falsifeid?

Heck... what might show that DNA is designed instead of it just being a long chemical (Polymer?) chain?

---

Has nothing to do with me.  I just want the "facts."  If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them.  Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them.  If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest.  Either something is or isn't.  If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.

I don't favor him over you,  if that's what you're suggesting.  I favor what is understood.  If you provide it, then no reason to disagree.

When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.

- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore

If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more.  As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing.  Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.

 No M4X, I was complementing you for helping support CDF47.

Again CDF47 is making claims. I am not.

Even if my position were nothing but pixie farts that does not mean that CDF47's position automatically becomes 'Right'.

I am not telling him he is wrong. I am asking him how his ideas are right.

And the missquoting thing is happening again.
[/quote]

You both are making claims.  Like I said, I'm not taking sides.   Just looking at what you are both saying and trying to make rhyme or reason as to the point of either.

---

Sorry, I did miss it unintentionally.  I think if you miss a day, you get about 5 pages behind in this thread.

Anyway, I never asked for an education on evolution.  I'm very aware of what it is considered.  I'm more interested in individual statements made pertaining to it.  If you lump fiction in with things that are factual, which is why I like to look at claims individually.  That way I'm not saying "yep" or "nope" to all of it.

I don't think that CDF's claim goes against scientific consensus.  Also, saying something "evolved" is a rather generic way to state something.  IMO, it's more important to ask "how", because evolution as a process is limited to how we can refer to it as a "theory" since much of it isn't and is contrary to what is known as science.  The processes claimed are often detrimental to organisms, and there are always problems with making jumps in information for organisms.  For example, saying it happened through mutations would go against what is known scientifically, because we know the likely result of a mutation is disadvantageous.  Thinks like cancer occur because of cell mutation.  Additionally, when mutations add a new feature, it often isn't functional and will often get the organism killed.  Like having a fly grow a third wing.  It loses its efficiency in flying, and is more likely than not to die from its dysfunction or get picked off by a predator due to its inability to escape.  Throw in that "positive" mutations would also need to develop in the reproductive system of male and female in most species, and simultaneously so that they can reproduce, because if not those new traits won't be passed down to offspring.  Even when we do see "evolution" happen, it's mostly speciation, and the genetic information is just being passed on, but not increased.  Sometimes this works, and sometimes this causes offspring to be sterile.   Like when you cross a horse and a donkey.  You end up with a mule, which most end up being infertile due to the differing chromosomal makeup between the horse and the donkey that birthed it.  So I can accept the bits and pieces of "evolution" that are true and observable, but the rest of it is nonsense.

 Is this your level of understanding of the theory M4X?

---

Regarding life outside this planet, so far the only intelligent life we have found is on Earth.  That may turn out to be the case in this universe.  We've been searching for a long time.  Not sure what we will find on those moons. 

Also, trying to change my position.  My position is related to DNA, not the ID movement.  I know you have that confused on purpose but just thought I'd remind you again.

 So... you're not even claiming your ideas have a modicum of... 'Science' behind them?

They're just your own 'I think this is right' kind of thing?

 OKay... how might your idea be falsifed CDF47?

What might show that your idea that DNA is some how designed be falsifeid?

Heck... what might show that DNA is designed instead of it just being a long chemical (Polymer?) chain?

---

Has nothing to do with me.  I just want the "facts."  If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them.  Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them.  If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest.  Either something is or isn't.  If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.

I don't favor him over you,  if that's what you're suggesting.  I favor what is understood.  If you provide it, then no reason to disagree.

When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.

- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore

If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more.  As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing.  Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.

 No M4X, I was complementing you for helping support CDF47.

Again CDF47 is making claims. I am not.

Even if my position were nothing but pixie farts that does not mean that CDF47's position automatically becomes 'Right'.

I am not telling him he is wrong. I am asking him how his ideas are right.

And the missquoting thing is happening again.
[/quote]

It's not the end all.  As a whole, it's not a theory anyway.  Just nuts calling it a theory to try to mask the holes in it.  Same as calling the "Big Bang" a theory, when they never found what they were looking for.  If it was a valid "theory" we wouldn't have multiple versions, and people arguing about whose current version is correct.  Now when you start to branch off those ideas, some of it is valid, because some of it is observed.