DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Amarok]

DNA contains information.  Information always comes from an intelligence.  DNA information is designed.

---

It shows how the machines function.

Information always come from intelligence?




Coming as that does from the dumbest fuck i’ve ever encountered still typing.

Intelligence is nothing more than information manipulating information.   Where did the original information that is supposedly your god come from?

Just a list of baseless assertions he has .

[CDF47]

It doesn't hurt anything and it is because men and women have the same body plan up until a certain point in the womb.

Redundant does not mean harmful and it is harmful as it makes men susceptible to things like breast cancer . And their is no reason an intelligent designer would not simple have them be absorbed or removed in some fashion. This makes no sense if life is designed . But it makes perfect sense in evolution.

Remember IDiots can always make up imaginary reasons something is there. It make it up as you go pure and simple .

They can also be stimulated for sex, LOL.

[Amarok]

A software engineer know it takes a programmer to write a code.

For a man made computer 

They see a code in DNA and know it didn't write itself.

 Baseless conclusion 

It's that intuitive.

And it sucks you can take man made objects then compare them to none made objects . Then conclude they have the same origin . That's classic non starter .

[Anomalocaris]

That’s why software engineers are not scientists.

Being an engineer means one could recite some of what science has discovered that has immediate application to a task.   It is somewhat like a Christian could recite the Bible, the Muslim could recite the Koran, the Buddhist can chant a mantra or you can chant the nonsense about irreducible complexity, they were told what is true and how to apply it, and have no real ability to replicate, validate or extend the process of original discovery.  

But being an engineer does not even begin to bridge the gap to actually doing science, which is a process of active discovery and validatiom of models that can demonstrably provide predictive analogues to the going’s on in the real world, and is thus quite unlike a Christian reciting the Bible, the Muslim reciting the Koran, the Buddhist chanting a mantra or you chanting irreducible complexity.

A software engineer know it takes a programmer to write a code.  They see a code in DNA and know it didn't write itself.  It's that intuitive.

Intuition is wrong.

A software engineer has no background in chemistry to understand the scope of possible organic chemistry over hundreds of millions of years.  He has no background in earth science to understand the conditions under which these organic chemistry operates.  He has no conception of the order of magnitude of individual trials possible at molecular level on a stage the size of the earth.

A programmer who has some real exposure to actual science would understand how narrow the confines of a few artificially created languages and artificially created machines really are and how little that equips him to opine what is possible in the real world outside of his keyboard, and shut up.

[CDF47]

I believe in the fall of man.

Rubbish make believe life has always had defects because life is not directed.  

I believe in the Christian God of the Bible.  

Make believe 

We are designed to grow old and die and be flawed.

Ad Hoc make believe . Their is no reason a god would do this . It makes perfect sense only in a naturalistic universe .

---

No, you guise stop saying that.

No 

Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity are solid and stand to this day.

No it has not it's been debunked six ways from sunday by real science .

It was never debunked.

Yes it was over and over and over and over . Behe is a fraud and as liar . 

It is too bad I haven't earned your respect but I would rather spread the truth.  If stating facts is unpopular, so be it.

To bad you have not stated any 

No, it is called co-option.  They are each irreducibly complex machines.

Nope 

Scientists have found no intermediary steps for irreducibly complex machines.

False but also irrelevant and fallcious  

The machine is complex and specific and comes from a highly sophisticated and functional code.

Nope 

No response.

Bollocks 

No response.

Bollocks 

No response.

Bollocks

Disagree

---

The article below provides better information on irreducible complexity:

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...php/id/840

[url=http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840][/url]propaganda site full of ID rubbish .

Grow up and stop being a keyboard tough guy.

Right after you stop confusing fairy tales for science

No, ID is science.

[Amarok]

They can also be stimulated for sex, LOL.

What's pleasurable is not always good . And are your seriously trying to compare  the risk of cancer to sexual stimulation as a trade off 

[CDF47]

Behe's arguments for irreducible complexity are solid and stand to this day.

It was never debunked.

It is too bad I haven't earned your respect but I would rather spread the truth.  If stating facts is unpopular, so be it.

No, it is called co-option.  They are each irreducibly complex machines.

Scientists have found no intermediary steps for irreducibly complex machines.

The machine is complex and specific and comes from a highly sophisticated and functional code.

No response.

No response.

No response.

Irreducible complexity does not even rise to the level of bunk.  To qualify as bunk it must make unique testable prediction.   It predicts nothing, and it solely expresses the opinion that it’s advocates are so stupid they can not even imagine how others can ever be not quite as stupid as they are.

They predicted that what was considered 97% junk DNA to actually have a function and they were correct.  It is now called non-coding DNA and it acts as the operating system.  Over 85 percent of DNA is non-coding DNA and 3% is coding DNA.

[Amarok]

Disagree

This is not an issue of agreement as it is not an issue of opinion . Your wrong plain and simple . You have no case .

No, ID is science.

Nope never was . Never will be .

[Anomalocaris]

Irreducible complexity does not even rise to the level of bunk.  To qualify as bunk it must make unique testable prediction.   It predicts nothing, and it solely expresses the opinion that it’s advocates are so stupid they can not even imagine how others can ever be not quite as stupid as they are.

They predicted that what was considered 97% junk DNA to actually have a function and they were correct.  It is now called non-coding DNA and it acts as the operating system.  Over 85 percent of DNA is non-coding DNA and 3% is coding DNA.

Repeating bunk does not make it less bunk.

[Amarok]

They predicted that what was considered 97% junk DNA to actually have a function and they were correct.  It is now called non-coding DNA and it acts as the operating system.  Over 85 percent of DNA is non-coding DNA and 3% is coding DNA.

Already linked to a dozen articles refuting the creation crockery .