DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[GUBU]

Mr Inquisition's parents kust be proud.  Before he came I couldn't imagine you'f be able to stack shit so high.

Glad I impressed you.

Not yo, your parents. I couldn't possibly imagine anything as useless as you until you turned up here.

[CDF47]

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

No, but I've never seen a 747 reproduce, either.  Have you?  Since the entire theory of how we got DNA in the first place is based on replication, analogizing it to something that doesn't replicate itself is just an invalid analogy.  If we saw 747s giving birth to other 747s, the question of the origin of the 747 would not be a simple matter.  What other argument do you have that isn't flawed?

Do you have any idea how complex replication actually is?  It is a highly complex process using sophisticated nano molecular machines.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, without getting bogged down in the weeds of how relatively complex it is compared to other things...it might be useful to point out that theres no clear reason why this should matter...nor any indication that any person is arguing with you about replication being complex in one way or another in your quoted text or anywhere else in these 400 pages....

.....so?

"Stuff is complex! Stuff is complex! Stuff is complex!"

Yes, we know...so what?

[CDF47]

I am going by the most widely excepted science regarding the Big Bang.

You're really, really, not. What existed prior to the initial expansion is highly speculative, and there is no scientific consensus on what was actually the case, merely multiple competing hypotheses that all fit with what we already know and have math that works. They ought to call it hypothetical physics instead of theoretical physics.

How did you determine that what you're presenting is the most widely accepted science regarding the Big Bang?

---

You can't get a universe from nothing, not even a simple universe.  This one is super-symmetrical/fine-tuned and definitely designed by a Creator.

You've been educated on how this is a straw man over and over, and you keep trotting it out. How are we supposed to take that as anything other than dishonest? Making a mistake about our position (or rather, the position of physicists) once is understandable; and doing it over and over after we've explained what our position actually is (conditions prior to the moment before the initial expansion are currently unknown) amounts to trolling.

Hawkings' calculations show infinite space curvature at the Big Bang.  Thus, no space.  How much matter and energy can fit in no space?  Zero.

---

I suspect there are some shills on this site.  It's a one hundred year practice and it gives the appearance of knowing what you are talking about, intimidation and ridicule tactics, straw man tactics,....  I am getting the sense that is at this site.  There are probably one or a few shills that sway things that way or that have multiple usernames.  I've seen this done at another site before.  Bullies like to make themselves look bigger than they really are.

I am no shill.  Those are all atheist tricks used on this site like I stated.  Honest intellectuals, LOL.

.....lol?  Why a "100 year practice"?  Why not fifty or two hundred or eleventy three.  Is there some significance to one hundred.  What happened in 1918 that you think is relevant to your participation on these boards?

The practice began in carnivals almost exactly one hundred years ago in 1914.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Carnivals......?  You;re trying to have a discussion about evolutionary biology, and carnivals are what comes to mind when you find that you have utterly failed at your own chosen task?

Now, though, we find you imagining that you have overcome the imaginary satanic conspiracy with your imaginary mental abilities and saved imaginary people for your imaginary god....from some imaginary shills?

[Mister Agenda]

Hawkings' calculations show infinite space curvature at the Big Bang.  Thus, no space.  How much matter and energy can fit in no space?  Zero.

How many times do I have to tell you that Hawking could be wrong before it sinks in? That is one hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos that has no more evidence to support it than any of the others. We are decades away from being able to conduct experiments that would allow us to test or eliminate any of them. You can't math something into existence. You don't get to just pick the calculation that you think works best for the position that you already hold. That would be stupid. The proper stance to take prior to a hypothesis that has not been disconfirmed or supported by evidence or predictions is 'neither disconfirmed nor supported', aka 'we don't know yet'.

Part of the silliness of this thread is that I don't even care if Hawking was correct or not, if he's right, good for him, posthumously. Whatever turns out to be the actual case is fine with me because I'm on team reality. But we cannot yet know if he was right.

[The Grand Nudger]

It;s another "so what" objection regardless of whether it pans out or not.  What would it have to do with his demonstrably false variant of christerism?

Nada.

[Foxaèr]

*prances through*

[Angrboda]

No, but I've never seen a 747 reproduce, either.  Have you?  Since the entire theory of how we got DNA in the first place is based on replication, analogizing it to something that doesn't replicate itself is just an invalid analogy.  If we saw 747s giving birth to other 747s, the question of the origin of the 747 would not be a simple matter.  What other argument do you have that isn't flawed?

Do you have any idea how complex replication actually is?  It is a highly complex process using sophisticated nano molecular machines.

I fail to see how your response in any way answers the objection. My point throughout this discussion is that you appear to lack the proof that you claim that you have. When I point out that your latest alleged proof is invalid, you acknowledge that with a rather irrelevant "but." Are you attempting to argue that complex things can't arise through a process of replication with variation? If so, then that's an argument you have to make, and haven't done so. In doing so, you're making a claim about what is and isn't possible, so you need to show not simply that you're incredulous, but that you having reasons for believing it to be impossible. Until you do, I'm fully justified in pointing out your apparent lack of proof for the thing you claim to have proven. And until you address that lack, your claims otherwise will simply be hollowly asserted bullshit.

[Astreja]

I suspect there are some shills on this site.

Name actual names and produce evidence that would hold up in a court of law.  If you cannot do that, retract the accusation.

And if you will not retract the accusation, it is my personal wish that your life turn into an unstoppable shit-storm replete with personal losses sufficient to permanently crush your faith beyond any hope of restoration.