DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[I_am_not_mafia]

So rocks are designed when it's convenient, and aren't designed when it isn't convenient. Is that about right?

Pretty much, additionally...you can tell somethings designed if it;s complex, or if it;s simple.

CDF47 needs to read this paper:

Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics in an Energy-Rich Universe (Published in Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics and the Production of Entropy), pp21-31, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.) - Eric Chaisson

Free energy, the ability to do work, is the most universal currency known in the natural sciences. In an expanding, non-equilibrated Universe, it is free energy that drives order from disorder, from big bang to humankind, in good accord with the second law of thermodynamics and leading to the production of entropy. On all scales, from galaxies and stars to planets and life, the rise of complexity over the course of natural history can be uniformly quantified by analyzing the normalized flow of energy through open, non-equilibrium, thermodynamic systems.

[CDF47]

I am not talking about the rock.  Rocks are not specified and complex.  I am talking about sophisticated systems like DNA, the human body,...  The only reason rocks are designed is because the entire universe is designed.

The design of a rock or of dna is not the same as the design of a 747.  Again, I;m asking you why you think that you're more like a 747 than rocks or dna.

It's an analogy.  Please do more study before responding with posts like this.

---

ID and theology are separate topics although ID has religious implications as I have stated prior.

Bullshit.

The court in Kitzmiller v Dover found otherwise.

4.
Whether ID is Science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that
while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no
position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one
of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1)
ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting
supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID,
employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation
science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted
by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is
additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific
community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the
subject of testing and research.

Go peddle your theology elsewhere.  We are on to you.  And so is the court.

Scientists determine scientific matters, not lawyers and judges.

---

You are so wrong on this one.  Extremely sophisticated information was found in DNA.  The debate is over.

What an incredibly poeish thing to say!

---

The scientific community disagrees with you.  51 percent of scientists are believers and 41 percent are non-believers based on a Pew poll result.  Once the stigma of ID wears old, I expect that number to increase even more for believers.  Also, 89 percent of people in the US believe in God based on a Gallup poll.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scien...nd-belief/
http://news.gallup.com/poll/193271/ameri...e-god.aspx

Many believers accept evolution. Including 100% of Catholics. So the fact 51% are believers is irrelevant.

I accept micro-evolution as well.

[The Grand Nudger]

The design of a rock or of dna is not the same as the design of a 747.  Again, I;m asking you why you think that you're more like a 747 than rocks or dna.

It's an analogy.  Please do more study before responding with posts like this.

-and unless you;re more like a 747 than a rock or dna..it;s a poor one.  That;s the takeaway.

So, one more time...what makes you think that you're more like a 747 than a rock or dna? All three are designed items. One item is the type of designed item you need to make your case; the inference from design. Why, in your estimation, are you more like that item than the other two?

[CDF47]

Pretty much, additionally...you can tell somethings designed if it;s complex, or if it;s simple.

Also, he appears to be assuming his conclusion by just stating the whole universe is designed. Given that, he's precluded any possibility of having something non-designed to compare to.

What would a non-designed universe look like, I wonder? One where almost 100% of it was lethal to its life forms I suppose.

No such thing.  That's a fairy tale for atheists.  You can't get everything from nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not a problem for evolutionary biology, regardless...as it;s what happens to something.

[CDF47]

It's an analogy.  Please do more study before responding with posts like this.

-and unless you;re more like a 747 than a rock or dna..it;s a poor one.  That;s the takeaway.

So, one more time...what makes you think that you're more like a 747 than a rock or dna?  All three are designed items.  One item is the type of designed item you need to make your case; the inference from design.  Why, in your estimation, are you more like that item than the other two?

Again, the human body is like DNA, highly specific and complex both, like the 747 and unlike the dumb rock.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and unless you;re more like a 747 than a rock or dna..it;s a poor one.  That;s the takeaway.

So, one more time...what makes you think that you're more like a 747 than a rock or dna?  All three are designed items.  One item is the type of designed item you need to make your case; the inference from design.  Why, in your estimation, are you more like that item than the other two?

Again, the human body is like DNA, highly specific and complex both, like the 747 and unlike the dumb rock.

Complexity and specificity are uninformative..the dumb rock is also designed..remember? I;m asking you a fairly simple question..and it;s completely within the remit of the limits of your faith. I don;t see why an answer is impossible to tease out.

Do you or do you not believe that you are designed just as a 747 is designed, and -not- in a way similar to how a rock is designed?

[Anomalocaris]

He is like Rik, but with less sophistication and specificity. So perhaps he is more like a rock to rik’s donkey.

[Edwardo Piet]

I accept micro-evolution as well.

How is this relevant?

---

Again, the human body is like DNA, highly specific and complex both, like the 747 and unlike the dumb rock.

So what?

[The Grand Nudger]

Honestly, I don;t think he knows.  CDF is one of those competence without comprehension cases.