DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

The energy is from God.  Better question is where does the information come from?

Is information a human label for a particular sort of patterns that our pattern-seeking brains have come to attribute?

If so, then the information came from humanity.
The DNA patterns themselves are what they are: chemicals arranged in suitable sequences for life forms to exist. Patterns which, judging by all the available evidence, have evolved from simple and humble beginnings, into the amazing machinery we see nowadays.
Had that evolution not happened, we wouldn't be here today to ponder about it... much like we weren't around for most of Life's history on this planet.

Certainly, DNA, as we now know it, couldn't have been the first mechanism for life's pattern of self-replication.
You've been told this repeatedly, and never once seemed to acknowledge its significance.
Why?
Why are you willfully ignoring a major part of the argument?

Information is a complex subject in itself.  Wikipedia has it defined below:

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

The entire reality of the universe is based on information.  See the property of physics in the Wikipedia link.

I am not ignoring the argument.  Both the complexity and function that we see in living systems could not have just evolved slowly over time.  Have you watched the videos in my signature?  The information in DNA acts like machine code.

[LadyForCamus]

Almost 600 pages, and where are we at? The same damn place we were at on page 1.:

“DNA is designed because CDF thinks it is.”

[CDF47]

Almost 600 pages, and where are we at?  The same damn place we were at on page 1.:

“DNA is designed because CDF thinks it is.”

I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

[The Grand Nudger]

They believed in fairies beforehand, so no surprise there.

-but so what? You don't accept the overwhelming position of biologists and academia that creationism is complete and utter garbage - even those religious scientists and engineers overwhelming conclude that creationism is bunk..lol. You don't even accept the proponents of creationism having abandoned any pretense of being scientific as informative. Why would it matter to you if a tiny fraction of randos in lab coats believed in the same fairy that you do?

Rhetorical, obviously. Desperate ignorance is desperate.

[Angrboda]

Both the complexity and function that we see in living systems could not have just evolved slowly over time.

Evidence or GTFO.

[LastPoet]

Both the complexity and function that we see in living systems could not have just evolved slowly over time.

Evidence or GTFO.

Funny that the evidence does point that indeed that living systems evolved slowly over time. There isn't much 'juice to squeeze from this one.

[Anomalocaris]

Almost 600 pages, and where are we at?  The same damn place we were at on page 1.:

“DNA is designed because CDF thinks it is.”

I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Vast majority of practicing Scientists do not.   A few genuine scientists, mostly in areas of expertise other than biology, do. But the vast majority of those who claim to be scientist for creation are demonstrable charlatans  with no credible scientific credentials and no creditable scientific accomplishments.

Engineers,  sorry to say,  don’t count because they are not in the business of finding the Underlying factual basis,but in the business of applying what has been given to them as  rules that have already been constructed by other people based on those underlying facts.

The fact that you think being seen as “technical” In the eyes of such baffoons as would populate your church suffices as qualifications suitable for issuing pronouncements on The methods and the results of basic scientific fact finding shows just how totally lacking you are in the sort of judgments expected of even the minimally scientifically literate In this day and age.

[Bucky Ball]

The most that could be said by a *scientist* is "I don't know why this works". The fact is science ... alone ... DOES know (and has MEASRURED) the relative strengths of DNA bonds, and why these work over competing forces. 
http://cbm.msoe.edu/markMyweb/Hydrogen%2..._MARK.html

Philosophy, creation, deities are ALL outside the scope of their expertise.
The constant attempted use here of the "argumentum ad vericundiam" (argument from authority --- FALLACY) is blatant nonsense.
Creators, gods, philosophy, codes, information (in this sense) are not and never could be the subject of scientific inquiry.
The fact that some scientists are able to compartmentalize religions, and still do science is interesting, but in no way supports anything.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Almost 600 pages, and where are we at?  The same damn place we were at on page 1.:

“DNA is designed because CDF thinks it is.”

I am not the only one that thinks it is.  There are many scientists and engineers that believe in creation.  Especially when they learn how DNA actually functions.

Yeah, those scientists and engineers that, like you, have an 8th century view of this matter.

[pocaracas]

Is information a human label for a particular sort of patterns that our pattern-seeking brains have come to attribute?

If so, then the information came from humanity.
The DNA patterns themselves are what they are: chemicals arranged in suitable sequences for life forms to exist. Patterns which, judging by all the available evidence, have evolved from simple and humble beginnings, into the amazing machinery we see nowadays.
Had that evolution not happened, we wouldn't be here today to ponder about it... much like we weren't around for most of Life's history on this planet.

Certainly, DNA, as we now know it, couldn't have been the first mechanism for life's pattern of self-replication.
You've been told this repeatedly, and never once seemed to acknowledge its significance.
Why?
Why are you willfully ignoring a major part of the argument?

Information is a complex subject in itself.  Wikipedia has it defined below:

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

The entire reality of the universe is based on information.  See the property of physics in the Wikipedia link.

I am not ignoring the argument.  Both the complexity and function that we see in living systems could not have just evolved slowly over time.  Have you watched the videos in my signature?  The information in DNA acts like machine code.

What happens when you apply a very ill-defined concept to a very specific problem?
Yeah.... nothing good.

The wiki is a good start, yes... but we need to go to something more serious. Try here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information/

"The term ‘information’ in colloquial speech is currently predominantly used as an abstract mass-noun used to denote any amount of data, code or text that is stored, sent, received or manipulated in any medium."
"In present colloquial speech the term information is used in various loosely defined and often even conflicting ways."
"There is no consensus about the exact nature of the field of philosophy of information. Some authors like Floridi (2002, 2003, 2011) present ‘Philosophy of Information’ as a completely new development with a capacity to revolutionize philosophy per se. Others (Adriaans and van Benthem 2008a; Lenski 2010) see it more as a technical discipline with deep roots in the history of philosophy and consequences for various disciplines like methodology, epistemology and ethics."




Your wiki entry on the Universe being information is... meh... a hypothesis. Nice try, but it holds no water.

I am not ignoring the argument. Both the complexity and function that we see in living systems could not have just evolved slowly over time. Have you watched the videos in my signature? The information in DNA acts like machine code.

"could not"?
Of course they could.
Your lack of capacity to understand how the process happens (and happened) is not an argument against Biology.

And yes, I have probably watched the videos months ago...