DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[GUBU]

This guy is lame.

---

There's a troll called Junk Status? I missed that one.

Remember AAA?  Someone nicknamed him Junk Status and it stuck, lol.

That was me.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I agree with an earlier post, the idea of an all powerful, all seeing, invulnerable god having to engage in any type of warfare or casting of anything anywhere is beyond silly.

And even if true even those creatures who should know the best clearly do not feel it worthy of their devotion and loyalty.

And then allowing them to go corrupt and fuck up all he made is so far fetched to be worthy of open derision.

Actually, the bible tells us that gawd is all powerful. Unless we have iron chariots, in which case gawd is fucked and can do nothing about it.

I don't worry about iron chariots, I've kicked JSDF butt too many time.

[GUBU]

I don't need to read a book about fantasy. Faith is subjective. And again - show me concrete, verifiable proof that you picked the right God, out of the thousands that are already in existence. 

List of deities

Many of the pagan religions are just known to be myth with the gods residing inside this universe (not creating it).  As far as Islam, Allah in the Quran says he is the greatest deceiver.  My Bible says the greatest deceiver is satan.  Many of the pagan religions are the same with different names for different gods.  That is just a brief reason.

You do know that your god is a minor member of one of the pagan pantheons you deride, right? Any time the bible speaks of the Elohim it is not talking about angels but yhwh's fellow Canaanite gods.

[Angrboda]

From the thread in which AAA, aka 'junk status', did it better:

I appreciate the fact that you are actually evaluating the argument as opposed to name calling.

Yes, I am aware that there are problems with the definition of specified. It is incredibly difficult to quantify information in the way that ID opponents demand. What I think Dembski is right about is that the quantity of information of a given sequence is directly proportional to the functionality that arises from said sequence. This is coupled with the fact that gene sequence exhibit an extremely high degree of functionality. While we don't know how to quantify it, this does not mean that we can't draw conclusions based on the qualitative features. I think he was premature in his attempt to draw probabilistic conclusions about these sequences when we don't know how much information we are talking about. However, I think the central argument that DNA contains information and that that information leads to specific functions is true.

Your objections are a part of a larger argument that I have developed. I would instead of dealing with them ex parte, include the whole.

---

Contra Design -- Against the argument for design from biology

For many, the question of design is as simple as Justice Stewart's observations on obscenity, to wit, "I'll know it when I see it." They start from the presumption that certain things look designed and go directly to "was designed" (Do not pass Go, do not collect $200). But it takes a little more than that to make an actual argument. There has to be something connecting the premise that "It looks designed," to the conclusion, "Therefore it is designed."

Schematically, it goes something like this:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) . . . .
P3)
P4)
C1) Therefore it was designed.

Now a first gander at P2, etc. is to suggest the following:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) If it looks designed, then it was designed;
C1) Therefore it was designed.

Unfortunately we know that P2 is not true. There are things which look designed that weren't designed and vice versa.

So we try a different tack:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) Things that look like an intelligence designed them, are designed;
P3) It looks like a thing an intelligence designed;
C1) Therefore it was designed.

But the key question here is what does it mean to say that it looks like a thing an intelligence designed? This is entirely too vague to be of use when debating whether something like the DNA in a cell was designed, wherein the target is clearly removed from any direct traces of a designer. And we still have the problem of false positives; we can't infer design if our argument is only 'sometimes' right.

So we attempt to narrow in on what it means for something to look like it was designed by an intelligence. Perhaps:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) Things that look like an intelligence designed them, are designed;
P3) It looks like a thing an intelligence designed if it is similar to the way humans design things;
P4) It is similar to that;
C1) Therefore it was designed.

This brings a little focus to the question, but again it's rather vague. We have two problems. One, it's not specified in what ways the item must be similar to count for a design inference; obviously the color of an object is irrelevant. The other problem is that for compositions as complex as a cell, we don't have similar things from human designers -- we're not that intelligent, so it leaves open the question of what we mean by similar if there are no similarly complex works of human design. As Hume remarks on the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II). What aspects of human design are we comparing to a cell?

This is where complex specified information, ala Dembski comes in:

P1) It looks designed;
P2) It looks designed because it has CSI;
P3) Things that have CSI, are designed;
C1) Therefore it was designed.

Unfortunately, as you seem to be admitting, and I'm claiming, Dembski jumped the gun in terms of a rigorous, usable definition for CSI. So what happens if we adopt your language that "The specified part is indicating that the information is used to accomplish a desired function." So being specified alludes to the item having specific functional significance. Here's the problem with that. Consider a bird's wing. Its function is to allow the bird to fly. It's not information, supposedly that's in the DNA for the creation of the wing, but ceterus paribus, the cases are parallel. Whether you agree with evolution or not, it is the case that we have mapped out how it is possible for this function to have arisen naturally. Function isn't specific only to designed systems. As I said before, function is in the eye of the beholder. If there is a possibility that the function of the wing arose naturally, then obviously function cannot be used to split the baby. For if it is even possible that specified information can arise naturally, it's no longer a flag for design. Now you may think the situation is different with abiogenesis, but it's not. All that has to be shown is that a possible sequence from a simpler organism without that function could lead to that more developed organism, all the way back to the first cell and beyond. (Not directly relevant, but think of the bacterial flagellum and the Type III secretory system.) We don't have to show probability or even have a complete map of the process to conclude from the evidence of the past 100 years that abiogenesis is a significant possibility.

So, in a nutshell, talk of "used to accomplish a desired function" doesn't work as function can be attributed to intelligent and natural causes. It's not a divider.

[Abaddon_ire]

How so?  Just stating facts about DNA, the universe,...

No you are not stating any facts.

Explain please why your gaaaawwwwwwd decided to give better eyes to squids? Are squids gaaaaawwwwddds chosen ones? Could it be that we should all along have been worshipping at the holy altar of the fish stick?

[Angrboda]

~ Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism
By Matt Young, Taner Edis

[GUBU]

I've read it cover to cover twice and selected parts many times. I've found it lacking, very lacking.

jesus of revelations is wack. That's quite the reward/revenge death cult. You should be proud.

Atheist communist regimes are responsible for more deaths this world has ever seen.

No such thing as an "atheist communist regime". Certain soi-disant communist leaders were atheists, but the majority either had religion or thought themselves gods.

Oh and you think that proportionally more people died in the 20th century than in the 17th century european wars of religion or the same century's religiously mandated depopulation of the Americas (death toll c. 90% of indigenous peoples) and the following depopulation of Africa through the slave trade (also decreed as neccessary by christian authorities). Shows you know as much of history as you do of science, and probably engineering to. Sweet Fanny Adams.

---

How many dragons are involved in this conflict?

That's symbolic language which is used quite a bit in Scripture.  There are lists on the Internet which describe all the symbols used.  The Bible is only about 10 percent supernatural.

---

Care to point out where this war in heaven is described in the buy-bull? Or are you going to ignore this post as you have every other I've made?

Isaiah and Revelation.

Isaiah was about explaining the Babylonian captivity without letting the "jews are special" delusion go. No war in heaven involved. Revelation was a bad mushroom trip that wasn't getting into the bible until some behind the scenes machinations saw it installed despite ecumenical council edict.

[CDF47]

How so?  Just stating facts about DNA, the universe,...

Read it again, and slowly.  In this hypothetical world..you are here on earth disseminating intelligent design when it is not factual...in the sight of god.  This approaches a relationship I could only call blasphemous.

Do you believe that you have the right to impose falsehood on christ?  Do you believe that this is an important issue?

The Creator left His signature inside the DNA as digital code.  The Bible says to look at the creation to find the signs of the Creator.  He allowed the discovery.

---

Yeah, he intended to come here to teach us, not to have a discussion or learn anything.

Clearly all this has no relevance to Christianity anyway since it wasn't discovered until relatively recently. Christians already believed we've been magically engineered, and no matter what science showed up about us, they were going to take it as evidence.

Digital code in DNA is not only evidence.  I think it's proof of a Creator.

---

Yeah, he intended to come here to teach us, not to have a discussion or learn anything.

Clearly all this has no relevance to Christianity anyway since it wasn't discovered until relatively recently. Christians already believed we've been magically engineered, and no matter what science showed up about us, they were going to take it as evidence.

No, he came here expecting to bowl us over with his "knowledge." I'll bet it's really burning his ass that we're laughing at him.

No, that's an old childish debating trick I am very familiar with.  It bothers me none.

---

He expects us to all instantly decide we are wrong, without ever considering for a second that he might be wrong. He could do with reading some real science by some real scientists instead of all this creationist spiel.

I attended 5 years mechanical engineering school.  Got bachelor of science in ME and 15 years experience as mechanical engineer, design team leader, and systems engineer.  Plus, I study science on my free time since teen years.  It is a favorite topic of mine, in addition to other hobbies.

[Abaddon_ire]

Read it again, and slowly.  In this hypothetical world..you are here on earth disseminating intelligent design when it is not factual...in the sight of god.  This approaches a relationship I could only call blasphemous.

Do you believe that you have the right to impose falsehood on christ?  Do you believe that this is an important issue?

The Creator left His signature inside the DNA as digital code.  The Bible says to look at the creation to find the signs of the Creator.  He allowed the discovery.

Really? Your gawwwwwddddd was so utterly useless that he could think of nothing better than vague hints? And then leaving his apologists to simply make crap up? That is your omnipotent gaaawwwwwwwwd?
 
Seems an inneffectual moron to me. After all,  you have a gaaaaaawwwwwwddddd who is so useless that he had to give birth to himself, to sacrifice himself to himself to make amends for a breach of the rules that he made himself in the full knowledge that it was pre-ordained  by himself that it would actually happen.

Somehow, you think such an idiotic moron is worthy of worship despite failing to actually exist.

[Amarok]

The Creator left His signature inside the DNA as digital code.  The Bible says to look at the creation to find the signs of the Creator.  He allowed the discovery.

Cool story bro 

No, that's an old childish debating trick I am very familiar with.  It bothers me none

Nope their is nothing childish about ridiculing the ridiculous 

Digital code in DNA is not only evidence.  I think it's proof of a Creator.

It isn't and it's not so your opinion is without merit .

I attended 5 years mechanical engineering school.  Got bachelor of science in ME and 15 years experience as mechanical engineer, design team leader, and systems engineer.  Plus, I study science on my free time since teen years.  It is a favorite topic of mine, in addition to other hobbies.

Your credentials are of no relevance here .

---

~ Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism
By Matt Young, Taner Edis

Truer words were never said