DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Maybe you should actually speak to some scientists rather than parrot what you have been told by religious non-scientists.

There are brilliant scientists in the ID community including Dr. Steven C. Meyer.  His undergrad work was in geology and physics and digital information processing.  His grad work was at Cambridge University in the Philosophy of Science with a focus on biology and life origins.

There are brilliant scientists in the ID community including Dr. Steven C. Meyer.  His undergrad work was in geology and physics and digital information processing.  His grad work was at Cambridge University in the Philosophy of Science with a focus on biology and life origins.

And the vast majority of scientists working in the field do not believe it came from a creator.

The person you refer to isn't even a scientist. His PhD was in history and philosophy of science. He is most certainly not a biologist yet talks about cellular biology. He is talking outside his field of expertise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

Meyer graduated with a B.S. degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College[5] and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.[6] Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club of Dallas to study at Cambridge University. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[7] His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[7] After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[8] then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University.[7] Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement.[9]

Actually 51 percent of scientists believe in God or a higher power and 41 percent don't believe in either and 7 percent don't know or refused to answer based on a Pew Research Poll.  I would post the link but I am not yet allowed to.

Dr. Meyer focused on digital information processing as part of his undergrad work and he focused on biology and life's origins as part of his grad work at Cambridge.

[Amarok]

And yet more issues with ENCODES findings and creationist spin of them 

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2015/11/the-...ncode.html

http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2012/09/bren...ejunk.html

[ignoramus]

I love how theists quote scientific articles if it can qualify their confirmation bias but ignore the vast body of science which speaks against it.
The compartmentalization is strong with this one!

Then again, they cherry pick their own bible to bits ...Is nothing sacred!

[robvalue]

You said it yourself, we label parts of the DNA with letters. That produces information, for us to try and understand how it works.

I think scientists have a pretty good idea about the origins of DNA, but even if they didn't, that doesn't imply a designer. We would just be lacking an explanation. That's not an invitation to invent explanations.

If someone did design life, they did a horrendous job.

Also, who cares if we are designed anyway? What difference does it make?

The best idea scientists have about DNA is that it was created by a Creator.  The information in DNA is extremely complex and specific which encodes the eventual instruction of highly sophisticated nano molecular machines and other proteins.  

From there I have to jump to theology if I may on this site.  The intent of this world is not perfection after the fall of man according to Scripture.  If the Bible is true, which I believe it is, it would make eternal consequences.

So you've jumped from "this is complicated" to "my religion is true". I think you missed out an awful lot of steps there. I guess eternal consequences is code for being tortured if we don't comply?

I'd suggest calming down with the preaching side. It's going to have zero effect here.

CDF47 has been banned for spamming and conflating science with religion.

Now, as I wrote earlier in that thread we tend to give religious types a wide berth, however, when they myopically and continually repeat themselves and quote "scripture"...

(TTA)

[CDF47]

I love how theists quote scientific articles if it can qualify their confirmation bias but ignore the vast body of science which speaks against it.
The compartmentalization is strong with this one!

Then again, they cherry pick their own bible to bits ...Is nothing sacred!

Which part of the quotation I provided do you disagree with exactly?

[Amarok]

Actually 51 percent of scientists believe in God or a higher power and 41 percent don't believe in either and 7 percent don't know or refused to answer based on a Pew Research Poll.  I would post the link but I am not yet allowed to.

That has nothing to do with anything 

Dr. Meyer focused on digital information processing as part of his undergrad work and he focused on biology and life's origins as part of his grad work at Cambridge.

Again nothing to do with anything

[I_am_not_mafia]

From Wikipedia:

In genomics and related disciplines, noncoding DNA sequences are components of an organism's DNA that do not encode protein sequences. Some noncoding DNA is transcribed into functional non-coding RNAmolecules (e.g. transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and regulatory RNAs). Other functions of noncoding DNA include the transcriptional and translational regulation of protein-coding sequences, scaffold attachment regions, origins of DNA replication, centromeres and telomeres.
The amount of noncoding DNA varies greatly among species. Often, only a small percentage of the genome is responsible for coding proteins, but a rising percentage is being shown to have regulatory functions. When there is much non-coding DNA, a large proportion appears to have no biological function, as predicted in the 1960s. Since that time, this non-functional portion has controversially been called "junk DNA".[1]
The international Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project uncovered, by direct biochemical approaches, that at least 80% of human genomic DNA has biochemical activity.[2] Though this was not necessarily unexpected due to previous decades of research discovering many functional noncoding regions,[3][4] some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function.[5][6][7][8][9]Estimates for the biologically functional fraction of our genome based on comparative genomics range between 8 and 15%.[10][11][12] However, others have argued against relying solely on estimates from comparative genomics due to its limited scope. Non-coding DNA has been found to be involved in epigenetic activity and complex networks of genetic interactions, and is being explored in evolutionary developmental biology.[4][11][13][14]

So? Do you even understand what you pasted?

After all, it also says:

"some scientists criticized the conclusion for conflating biochemical activity with biological function."

The neutral gene theory explains why the evolutionary process benefits from junk DNA. Basically, parts of the DNA get duplicated as a form of mutation. If this doesn't lower the fitness of the agent then it stays. Although it does not have an effect, it effectively opens up part of the evolutionary search space for further mutations to occur in future generations. I deliberately use this in my evolutionary runs. I add in a duplication rate of 1% so the genotype can grow more complex over the course of the evolutionary run. This leads to the equivalent of junk DNA and I strip away parts of the phenotype that it generates to make processing more efficient.

This isn't just a hypothesis. This works in practice. It's useful. If the theory wasn't correct I wouldn't be able to use it.

[CDF47]

The best idea scientists have about DNA is that it was created by a Creator.  The information in DNA is extremely complex and specific which encodes the eventual instruction of highly sophisticated nano molecular machines and other proteins.  

From there I have to jump to theology if I may on this site.  The intent of this world is not perfection after the fall of man according to Scripture.  If the Bible is true, which I believe it is, it would make eternal consequences.

So you've jumped from "this is complicated" to "my religion is true". I think you missed out an awful lot of steps there. I guess eternal consequences is code for being tortured if we don't comply?

I'd suggest calming down with the preaching side. It's going to have zero effect here.

CDF47 has been banned for spamming and conflating science with religion.

Now, as I wrote earlier in that thread we tend to give religious types a wide berth, however, when they myopically and continually repeat themselves and quote "scripture"...

(TTA)

I am not preaching.  I was asked a question which goes beyond scientific knowledge so I had to step in the realm of theology.  Also, I do not believe in eternal torture; rather, I believe in Anihalitionism which is the belief that the un-saved souls are destroyed upon a second death.  The Bible states hell and death are thrown in the lake of fire which I believe is the destruction of this universe.  There are Biblical reasons for that.  The Bible also describes the perishing and destruction of wicked souls.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Actually 51 percent of scientists believe in God or a higher power and 41 percent don't believe in either and 7 percent don't know or refused to answer based on a Pew Research Poll.  I would post the link but I am not yet allowed to.

Depends what kind of scientists and where they come from. I can bet you that 51% of biologists in Denmark certainly don't believe in a god. Far greater numbers of computer scientists may well believe in Allah though.

[robvalue]

Oh okay, so it's join our religion or you'll be annihilated. That still sounds like a threat to me.

I'm quite happy with annihilation anyway, personally.