DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Of course you are wrong.  The universe was created by the living and eternal Lord.

Can you prove it wasn't pixies? I have faith that it was.

I can prove it was an intelligent being.  Look at DNA.  It is highly complex and extremely specific information in the nucleotide bases that program the construction of molecular machines and components.

[Abaddon_ire]

Can you prove it wasn't pixies? I have faith that it was.

I can prove it was an intelligent being. 

Pixies are intelligent.

Look at DNA.  It is highly complex and extremely specific information in the nucleotide bases that program the construction of molecular machines and components.

Yes, DNA was one of the pixies crowning achievements. Glad you agree.

[Angrboda]

As noted earlier, that doesn't contain the relevant calculation either.  If this is the centerpiece of the argument for design, then where is it?

ID has been around for a while and is used in many different fields; such as astronomy, forensics, and SETI.

We're not talking about "intelligent design" as a general idea, but rather the concept of complex specified information, the claim that it both has a rigorous definition and that that definition has been successfully applied to determine that DNA has been designed. I'm guessing from the way you're talking around the question instead of answering it that you don't actually know if it has been successfully applied to DNA. That makes you a bit of a liar, doesn't it? Feel free to point to any examples in "astronomy, forensics, and SETI" where the concept and definition of CSI has been applied. You can't because there aren't any.

Here is a brief catalogue of some of the things Dembski has claimed exhibit CSI or “specified complexity”:

(1) 16-digit numbers on VISA cards (Dembski 1999, p. 159),
(2) phone numbers (Dembski 1999, p. 159),
(3) “all the numbers on our bills, credit slips, and purchase orders” (Dembski 1999,p. 160),
(4) the “sequence corresponding to a Shakespearean sonnet” (Dembski 2002,p. xiii),
(5) Arthur Rubinstein’s performance of Liszt’s “Hungarian Rhapsody” (Dembski 2002, p. 95),
(6) “Most human artifacts, from Shakespearean sonnets to Dürer woodcuts to Cray supercomputers” (Dembski 2002, p. 207),
(7) Scrabble pieces spelling words (Dembski 2002, pp. 172–173),
(8) DNA (Dembski 2002, pp. 151),
(9) error-counting function in an evolution simulation (Dembski 2002, p. 217),
(10) a “fitness measure that gauges degree of catalytic function” (Dembski 2002, p. 221),
(11) the “fitness function that prescribes optimal antenna performance” (Dembski 2002, p. 221),
(12) “coordination of local fitness functions” (Dembski 2002, p. 222),
(13) what “anthropic principles” explain in fine-tuning arguments (Dembski 2002, p. 144),
(14) “fine-tuning of cosmological constants” (Dembski 2002, p. xiii),
(15) what David Bohm’s “quantum potentials” extract in the way of “active information” (Dembski 2002, p. 144), and
(16) “the key feature of life that needs to be explained” (Dembski 2002, p. 180).

What is really remarkable about this list is both the breadth of Dembski’s claims and the complete and utter lack of quantitative justification for those claims. We cannot emphasize this point strongly enough: although the decision about whether something possesses CSI appears to require, by Dembski’s own formulation, at the very least a choice of probability space, a probability estimate, a discussion of relevant background knowledge, an independence calculation, a rejection function, and a rejection region, none of these have been provided for any of the items on this list.

Information theory, evolutionary computation, and Dembski’s “complex specified information” [emphasis mine]

[Joods]

The evidence is so overwhelming it can be called proof or fact or objective.

The "evidence" is so underwhelming that real scientists dismiss it, and I will fucking stop you right now before you again go that fucking ignorant agenda route.

Don't continue to test me with your stupidity, because I am currently not in the mood.

I told you not to try having a battle of wits with an unarmed person. Now go stand in the corner and think about what you've done.

[The Grand Nudger]

Wonderful..then the intelligence of some thing is not due to us having created it, but due to some thing x -about- that thing...x.

Agreed?

No, the intelligence is due to our having created it.

---

Wonderful..then the intelligence of some thing is not due to us having created it, but due to some thing x -about- that thing...x.

Agreed?

I disagree.

Would you like to revise your earlier statements then, and claim that a paper airplane is intelligent, for example, since it was also created by us?   I feel like you're reflexively disagreeing more out of fear, than sense.

This is pretty mundane stuff.

[robvalue]

At this point I think some of you deserve a medal for trying to persue honest discourse here. I was thinking of how I could have responded to the last vapid reply I got to try and “continue” the conversation but I can’t be bothered now. I don’t sense very much effort on his end.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can;t make a liar honest...but you can make them obvious. 

[Amarok]

ID has been around for a while and is used in many different fields; such as astronomy, forensics, and SETI.

Nope it's never been used in any field . IDiots keep proclaiming it's used in many fields .Much to the ire of scientist working in those fields.

---

I can prove it was an intelligent being.  Look at DNA.  It is highly complex and extremely specific information in the nucleotide bases that program the construction of molecular machines and components.

You can't prove anything .All you can do is recite fallacies .

---

Below is information on the genetic code:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

ID distortion of science and fallacies from it .

---

Just neo-Darwinist propaganda

Only one side here is using propaganda

---

I don't have calculations. I'll refer you to his book Design Inference.

Which is not an inference it's a heap of fallacies and flim flam .

---

It's all propaganda.  See I can play the same game you atheists play.

No you can't . Because were not playing games . You on the other hand well that's all your doing . You need propaganda we don't .

---

Of course you are wrong.  The universe was created by the living and eternal Lord.

Assertion and you never answered him .

[Ravenshire]

CDF47:

[CDF47]

No, the intelligence is due to our having created it.

---

I disagree.

Would you like to revise your earlier statements then, and claim that a paper airplane is intelligent, for example, since it was also created by us?   I feel like you're reflexively disagreeing more out of fear, than sense.

This is pretty mundane stuff.

It is not intelligent but it is complex and specified and has a Creator.