DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

The information is digital and it is a code that programs the construction of highly sophisticated advanced nano molecular machine.

Not an answer to the question.  You've just replaced DNA with a description of it, not demonstrated that "digital information that programs the construction of highly sophisticated advanced nano molecular machines," cannot arise naturally.

The system makes a 747 jumbo jet look like child's play. Have you ever seen a 747 construct itself?

---

Computers built and constructed by a creator programmed to write code can write code.  Not mindless.

Would you like to reverse your earlier comments, then, and claim that computers have minds?  Or perhaps you'd like to assert that paper airplanes are similarly not mindless..on account of them having been created by the same human beings?  (though..I thought we already discussed this?)

That would be disastrous for your supernatural argument..but you;re certainly free to shoot your own foot if you absolutely feel the need to do so.

I get the feeling that you are stretching it deep to try to get me to talk in circles.  There is a mind even behind a paper airplane and computers,....  Computers themselves due not have a mind.

---

Just to be entirely fair and transparent..I realized the moment that you started down the "it;s code" line you'd painted yourself into an impossible corner.

The thing you're referring to as instructive of a god is an entirely natural mindless thing producing the very thing you take to be informative.  Even if you try to dial it back (as you have)..then we see another natural (this time mindful) thing producing not only the exact thing you take to be instructive.....but also the means by which -it's- produced.

Either of us could qualify as the "intelligent designer" of the products.  Maybe then you'd claim that the computer isn;t intelligent, though....but then a mindless unintelligent thing is producing the exact thing you take to be instructive.

Do you see how it starts out bad..and only gets worse?

No, I see a lot of spin and confusing irrational mumbo jumbo.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Would you like to reverse your earlier comments, then, and claim that computers have minds?  Or perhaps you'd like to assert that paper airplanes are similarly not mindless..on account of them having been created by the same human beings?  (though..I thought we already discussed this?)

That would be disastrous for your supernatural argument..but you;re certainly free to shoot your own foot if you absolutely feel the need to do so.

I get the feeling that you are stretching it deep to try to get me to talk in circles.  There is a mind even behind a paper airplane and computers,....  Computers themselves due not have a mind.

I don;t actually have to goad you into doing that.  You;re more than willing to volunteer the service.  I;ve actually tried to help you avoid it...but....you insist, lol.

"There must be a mind behind the thing I think is indicative of a mind or else it couldn;t have created the thing that I;m sure comes from minds!"

Not only are you wrong..that's a loop within a loop. I -agree-...computers don;t have minds..but they do produce the thing you said was indicative of a mind...so thats that. It;s done. It;s over. The thing you pointed to doesn;t even suggest or imply a mind, let alone necessitate one. That;s just your sloppy thinking...and...you know what, maybe there is a mind behind -that-, but even if it were, that wouldn;t change the failure of the process with which you arrived at what could only be described as an accidentally accurate conclusion.

I wan;t you to mull that over. If we lived in an alternate universe where your god really existed...you.......would still have been wholly wrong in this thread. Can an argument really get any worse than that?

---

Just to be entirely fair and transparent..I realized the moment that you started down the "it;s code" line you'd painted yourself into an impossible corner.

The thing you're referring to as instructive of a god is an entirely natural mindless thing producing the very thing you take to be informative.  Even if you try to dial it back (as you have)..then we see another natural (this time mindful) thing producing not only the exact thing you take to be instructive.....but also the means by which -it's- produced.

Either of us could qualify as the "intelligent designer" of the products.  Maybe then you'd claim that the computer isn;t intelligent, though....but then a mindless unintelligent thing is producing the exact thing you take to be instructive.

Do you see how it starts out bad..and only gets worse?

No, I see a lot of spin and confusing irrational mumbo jumbo.

I know that you;re confused...but all you have to do is ask and I;ll clear up whatever it is that's got you stumped. Let;s start with this. You think that you;re arguing with me about the existence of a god...but you;re not. I;m simply telling you why your argument was a balls to the wall failure -regardless- of whether or not a god exists.

[Nay_Sayer]

Not an answer to the question.  You've just replaced DNA with a description of it, not demonstrated that "digital information that programs the construction of highly sophisticated advanced nano molecular machines," cannot arise naturally.

The system makes a 747 jumbo jet look like child's play. Have you ever seen a 747 construct itself?

---

Would you like to reverse your earlier comments, then, and claim that computers have minds?  Or perhaps you'd like to assert that paper airplanes are similarly not mindless..on account of them having been created by the same human beings?  (though..I thought we already discussed this?)

That would be disastrous for your supernatural argument..but you;re certainly free to shoot your own foot if you absolutely feel the need to do so.

I get the feeling that you are stretching it deep to try to get me to talk in circles.  There is a mind even behind a paper airplane and computers,....  Computers themselves due not have a mind.

---

Just to be entirely fair and transparent..I realized the moment that you started down the "it;s code" line you'd painted yourself into an impossible corner.

The thing you're referring to as instructive of a god is an entirely natural mindless thing producing the very thing you take to be informative.  Even if you try to dial it back (as you have)..then we see another natural (this time mindful) thing producing not only the exact thing you take to be instructive.....but also the means by which -it's- produced.

Either of us could qualify as the "intelligent designer" of the products.  Maybe then you'd claim that the computer isn;t intelligent, though....but then a mindless unintelligent thing is producing the exact thing you take to be instructive.

Do you see how it starts out bad..and only gets worse?

No, I see a lot of spin and confusing irrational mumbo jumbo.

!Fact! Jupiter's moon Ganymede, is larger than the planet Mercury.

[Amarok]

The system makes a 747 jumbo jet look like child's play. Have you ever seen a 747 construct itself?

Hoyle's fallacy

I get the feeling that you are stretching it deep to try to get me to talk in circles.  There is a mind even behind a paper airplane and computers,....  Computers themselves due not have a mind.

Considering you accept ID we don't  trust your feelings 

No, I see a lot of spin and confusing irrational mumbo jumbo.

No that what we see every time you comment . Again you believe ID we don't trust your rationality .Rational on the other hand can see Khems point clear as day and accept it .

---

---

I get the feeling that you are stretching it deep to try to get me to talk in circles.  There is a mind even behind a paper airplane and computers,....  Computers themselves due not have a mind.

I don;t actually have to goad you into doing that.  You;re more than willing to volunteer the service.  I;ve actually tried to help you avoid it...but....you insist, lol.

"There must be a mind behind the thing I think is indicative of a mind or else it couldn;t have created the thing that I;m sure comes from minds!"

Not only are you wrong..that's a loop within a loop.  I -agree-...computers don;t have minds..but they do produce the thing you said was indicative of a mind...so thats that.  It;s done.  It;s over.  The thing you pointed to doesn;t even suggest or imply a mind, let alone necessitate one.  That;s just your sloppy thinking...and...you know what, maybe there is a mind behind it, but even if it were, that wouldn;t change the failure of the process at which you arrived at what could only be described as an accidentally accurate conclusion.

---

No, I see a lot of spin and confusing irrational mumbo jumbo.

I know that you;re confused...but all you have to do is ask and I;ll clear up whatever it is that's got you stumped.

Reality has him stumped. That's why he's a creationist .

[The Grand Nudger]

I know, but he doesn;t have to be.  Eventually...I hope to bring him round to the fact that base IDiocy isn;t a requirement of christian belief.  

Honestly, it cheapens it....if that;s possible, lol. Theres no need to reimagine the world as a fantasy in order to believe in a higher power. Things can be as they are. If there is a higher power..then things are as they are -and- there is a higher power. A person chooses to place their god in competition with reality. It;s a poor choice.

[CDF47]

---

I get the feeling that you are stretching it deep to try to get me to talk in circles.  There is a mind even behind a paper airplane and computers,....  Computers themselves due not have a mind.

I don;t actually have to goad you into doing that.  You;re more than willing to volunteer the service.  I;ve actually tried to help you avoid it...but....you insist, lol.

"There must be a mind behind the thing I think is indicative of a mind or else it couldn;t have created the thing that I;m sure comes from minds!"

Not only are you wrong..that's a loop within a loop.  I -agree-...computers don;t have minds..but they do produce the thing you said was indicative of a mind...so thats that.  It;s done.  It;s over.  The thing you pointed to doesn;t even suggest or imply a mind, let alone necessitate one.  That;s just your sloppy thinking...and...you know what, maybe there is a mind behind -that-, but even if it were, that wouldn;t change the failure of the process with which you arrived at what could only be described as an accidentally accurate conclusion.

I wan;t you to mull that over.  If we lived in an alternate universe where your god really existed...you.......would still have been wholly wrong in this thread.  Can an argument really get any worse than that?

---

No, I see a lot of spin and confusing irrational mumbo jumbo.

I know that you;re confused...but all you have to do is ask and I;ll clear up whatever it is that's got you stumped.  Let;s start with this.  You think that you;re arguing with me about the existence of a god...but you;re not.  I;m simply telling you why your argument was a balls to the wall failure -regardless- of whether or not a god exists.

The computer needs a mind to create it and the program inside as well.

[Amarok]

I know, but he doesn;t have to be.  Eventually...I hope to bring him round to the fact that base IDiocy isn;t a requirement of christian belief.  

Honestly, it cheapens it....if that;s possible, lol.  Theres no need to reimagine the world as a fantasy in order to believe in a higher power.  Things can be as they are.  If there is a higher power..then things are as they are -and- there is a higher power.  A person chooses to place their god in competition with reality.  It;s a poor choice.

A noble goal 

But i'm skeptical

---

The computer needs a mind to create it and the program inside as well.

Fallacy

[CDF47]

The system makes a 747 jumbo jet look like child's play. Have you ever seen a 747 construct itself?

---

I get the feeling that you are stretching it deep to try to get me to talk in circles.  There is a mind even behind a paper airplane and computers,....  Computers themselves due not have a mind.

---

No, I see a lot of spin and confusing irrational mumbo jumbo.

!Fact! Jupiter's moon Ganymede, is larger than the planet Mercury.

Damn, that's kind of crazy when you think of it.

[Nay_Sayer]

!Fact! Jupiter's moon Ganymede, is larger than the planet Mercury.

Damn, that's kind of crazy when you think of it.

!Fact! The cubicle did not get its name from its shape, but from the Latin “cubiculum” meaning bed chamber.

[CDF47]

I know, but he doesn;t have to be.  Eventually...I hope to bring him round to the fact that base IDiocy isn;t a requirement of christian belief.  

Honestly, it cheapens it....if that;s possible, lol.  Theres no need to reimagine the world as a fantasy in order to believe in a higher power.  Things can be as they are.  If there is a higher power..then things are as they are -and- there is a higher power.  A person chooses to place their god in competition with reality.  It;s a poor choice.

ID strengths the design argument.  Nice try attempting to attack that.  It is not a requirement but it does provide strong evidence and reason.  Are you playing tricks.