DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Mister Agenda]

I've been to other atheist sites and Christian sites.  I think I will keep posting here as well.  I've made some new friends.  Glad you learned some things.

Have you considered going to biology sites?

[Astreja]

Your god has a plan for humanity, CDF?

So much for that "free will" shit.

[Mister Agenda]

Yeah, right.  There is no proof of that; organic life from non-organic, and you know it.  There is no proof that there is a common ancestor to all life.

There's evidence for organic life from organic chemistry, so there's that. T

he evidence for a common ancestor is in the DNA, we have found no example of any life form without the same DNA lineage. If we ever do, that just means that there's more than one DNA lineage (probably a microorganism), we'll still have a common ancestor with the other great apes, and the smoking gun on that is endogenous retroviruses, living fossils of DNA our ancestors picked up that their descendants inherited, and guess who we share ours with?

[LastPoet]

Indeed, Little rik with a lot less karma. While considering how fragile he is for giving him that food he eats, please consider that you would be killing him of troll obesity. According to the lore, trolls are flimsy flatfooted creatures, easy to kill so they say.

[Mister Agenda]

The initial program required a programmer.  All information and information processes come from a mind.

If you're going to reason like that, be consistent. The only examples of minds capable of that sort of thing are contained in physical brains. Therefore, using the same logic, DNA must have been designed by a mind with a physical brain.

[CDF47]

I retracted kind as a species to kind as a genus.

You'd pretty much have to if you don't want your humiliation described as 'utter'.   

I agree the Bible is heavily symbolic.  I believe the Bible is only 10 percent supernatural.

Then maybe you shouldn't take the Genesis account so literally.   

Most scientists believe the Big Bang Theory.

And most of them are wise enough not to claim that they know what was going on before the expansion started.

Scientists have an agenda against ID.  Maybe one day someone will get the Nobel with work in this field.

Scientists have an agenda against bad science. ID is a hypothesis, not a theory, and every attempt to prove it has failed. It has no place in science education except as an example of pseudo-science, along with cold fusion. You'll note cold fusion proponents have trouble getting physics positions these days too, right?

I will pray for you.

Thanks, I'll try to remember to check back with you Wednesday next to let you know if it worked.

There is an agenda against ID.  Don't have to belong to any truth movement for that.  Although there is a system in place but that is a whole other topic.

Weeding out bad science isn't an agenda, it's what sciencehas to do for it to continue to work.

I don't follow the pope or his claims.  I am no longer Catholic.  

I didn't say you were. Just pointing out the theory of evolution doesn't turn you into an atheist. Finding out your parents and pastor lied to you about evolution might do it, but the only thing that makes the ToE a danger to belief is the fundamentalist insistence that it's wrong in the face of all the evidence that supports it and everything it explains and accounts for better than any other narrative. Once a kid finds out you lied to them about that, they are likely to wonder what else they've been lied to about by their religion.

That is from the KJV.  ESV translates it "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things."

God created Satan and Satan rebelled.  There was a war in heaven.  This world appears to have something to do with that war.

It was very convenient of the ESV to translate it like that. Why did God create Satan, knowing Satan would rebel and cause trouble for innocent humans?

I've already addressed the war in heaven misunderstanding. The 'Lucifer' in those passages is a reference to Nebuchadnezzar or perhaps his son, dead while the Israelites remain. It's symbolic.

I said I retracted kind as a species to kind as a genus.  There is no exact scientific definition, I agree.

Here's the thing. Your schtick here has been to claim that you've done all your homework, to the point that you can't possibly be wrong. But you didn't know there were real-time observations of speciation happening. So you didn't know what a 'kind' is AND didn't understand why 'species' was a poor choice as an analogue for 'kind'. But you are absolutely right about everything else and know more than anyone else here about DNA and evolution, right? This was the ONLY thing were you didn't really know what you were talking about? Why are you so confident about a field that you lack training and expertise in just because you've watched a lot of videos about it?

Dunning-Krueger is the only explanation that makes sense to me...and by your standards, I'm justified in concluding that I MUST be right about that, on the basis that I can't see how I could be wrong, eh?

I believe in the Day-Age Interpretation of Genesis.  I provided a chart earlier in this thread.

I believe evolution is true to an extent.  I believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution.

Your interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 may be correct.  The ESV and NASB have similar interpretations.  These are some of the best versions of the Bible back to the original text.  I like the KJV as well but it has it's problems.  God created Satan as a top angel and He rebelled with free will.  He was then cast out of heaven.

There is highly sophisticated functional information in DNA.  Enough said.  I have an understanding of how DNA works and yes it proves there is a Creator.  These other topics are fun to discuss but they are not the main topic of the discussion in this thread.

---

I've been to other atheist sites and Christian sites.  I think I will keep posting here as well.  I've made some new friends.  Glad you learned some things.

Have you considered going to biology sites?

That's a great idea.

[Mister Agenda]

So, CDF, is a kind just something that looks alike to illiterate Iron Age “patriarchs”, or is it something meeting a particular measurable standard of similarity?

From my understanding it is the genus or so of taxonomy.

Were I you, I'd go with 'clade' or 'family'. 'Genus' is gonna give you trouble.

[CDF47]

Your god has a plan for humanity, CDF?

So much for that "free will" shit.

I think it's a combination of both Astreja.  He has His plan and His will be done but we also have free will to make decisions.  We are not robots.

---

Yeah, right.  There is no proof of that; organic life from non-organic, and you know it.  There is no proof that there is a common ancestor to all life.

There's evidence for organic life from organic chemistry, so there's that. T

he evidence for a common ancestor is in the DNA, we have found no example of any life form without the same DNA lineage. If we ever do, that just means that there's more than one DNA lineage (probably a microorganism), we'll still have a common ancestor with the other great apes, and the smoking gun on that is endogenous retroviruses, living fossils of DNA our ancestors picked up that their descendants inherited, and guess who we share ours with?

Who do we share ours with?

---

The initial program required a programmer.  All information and information processes come from a mind.

If you're going to reason like that, be consistent. The only examples of minds capable of that sort of thing are contained in physical brains. Therefore, using the same logic, DNA must have been designed by a mind with a physical brain.

DNA must have been designed by a super intelligence.  It is mind boggling in how it works and we are still trying to figure out much more about it.

---

From my understanding it is the genus or so of taxonomy.

Were I you, I'd go with 'clade' or 'family'. 'Genus' is gonna give you trouble.

From what I read, it is looking like genus.  Family was mentioned as a potential but not quite determined at this point.

[Mister Agenda]

No way.  This is where the big lie comes in.  It is the functional sequence of the DNA genetic information that controls the process and the sequence of amino acids.  This is not just dumb simple chemistry.  It is intelligently designed functional information.  Trying to cover up this fact.

If it was sequence alone that was important, you could do the same thing with different chemicals, but you can't. If it was sequence that was important, you wouldn't have so much repetition just because certain of the components of DNA are necessary to keep the strands chemically stable, making it less efficient at memory storage than it would be if a qualified human had designed it.

And organic chemistry is far more complicated than relatively simple inorganic chemistry.

---

Again, there is no way a blind undirected process could develop the information bearing properties contain in DNA.

Again, mere assertion, dismissed as such.

---

Not a baseless assertion.  I provided the facts, documented information, videos,..., to backup the claim.

Except for the middle part where you explain why the conclusion must follow.

[CDF47]

No way.  This is where the big lie comes in.  It is the functional sequence of the DNA genetic information that controls the process and the sequence of amino acids.  This is not just dumb simple chemistry.  It is intelligently designed functional information.  Trying to cover up this fact.

If it was sequence alone that was important, you could do the same thing with different chemicals, but you can't. If it was sequence that was important, you wouldn't have so much repetition just because certain of the components of DNA are necessary to keep the strands chemically stable, making it less efficient at memory storage than it would be if a qualified human had designed it.

And organic chemistry is far more complicated than relatively simple inorganic chemistry.

---

Again, there is no way a blind undirected process could develop the information bearing properties contain in DNA.

Again, mere assertion, dismissed as such.

---

Not a baseless assertion.  I provided the facts, documented information, videos,..., to backup the claim.

Except for the middle part where you explain why the conclusion must follow.

It is the sequence of the nucleotide bases that determines the sequence of the amino acid chains.