DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

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 even imagine how others can ever be not quite as stupid as they are.

He will claim behe's lame ass prediction . That never actually came true and was easily refuted or he will go back his fallacy of "you have not found i precursor i will accept therefore there isn't one". Pure fallacy .

Explain the Cambrian Explosion.  There was an explosion of life over 10 years (mainly over 5 years) with no successive intermediaries.  16 life forms were found.  How did that happen.  These were brand new body plans.

---

The article below provides better information on irreducible complexity:

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

If you can’t even put into your own words as simple an idiotic a concept of intelligent design so as to at least set up the framework for working through what its shortcomings might be, and have to resort to pasting link to idiotic creationist shill websites as if you truly imagined they could offer anything that we have not considered more throroughly than authors of such tripe would ever imagine, then you are truly a waste of time.

I already provided my own definitions and information and you all don't listen so I pasted a reference.

[Amarok]

Explain the Cambrian Explosion.  There was an explosion of life over 10 years (mainly over 5 years) with no successive intermediaries.  16 life forms were found.  How did that happen.  These were brand new body plans.

That's pile of shit. the explosion took 25 million  years. And we have found plenty of  gradual fossils thou not as many as other periods . But  we should expect fossils of the period to be rare as conditions were poor for fossilization and the destruction of fossil beds  on the sea bed would have been common due to seismic activity in that period  . And once again your going back to your fallacy of "if we have not found it .So it does not exist.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

[CDF47]

He will claim behe's lame ass prediction . That never actually came true and was easily refuted or he will go back his fallacy of "you have not found i precursor i will accept therefore there isn't one". Pure fallacy .

A prediction of “you will never find” is no prediction at all unless one waits to the end of time.

A prediction is “this is what you will find”.  A unique prediction is “this is what you will find because....,and no one else will forecast this find because...”.

Fair enough.  You will never find a natural cause for the information in DNA, I predict.  Information always comes from an intelligence.

---

Dr. Meyer used the same scientific method as Darwin to show that intelligent design is the best argument for information in DNA, molecular machines,...  It is not just an assertion.

No he didn't and yes it nothing but an assertion . Meyers is a fraud.

Someone actually did say they weren't machines and the videos do show they are irreducibly complex.  You are just afraid to watch them because you will see your whole atheist worldview come crashing down in the face of the intricacy of the molecular machine.

Nope because the video's don't support your case . And there is no such thing as an atheist worldview .

I see nothing wrong with post 2059.

Yes there is it's wrong 

Design can be inferred.  See the following book on design inference by William Dembski: The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction and Decision Theory).

Dembski is a fraud and his probability argument has already been refuted by real scientists .There is no design inference .It's a crock of shit .

I am a believer so I am not spiritually blind.  That verse is for unbelievers.

Nop your just blind

You all just try to discredit the ID scientists, many of which are brighter than you.  It's a debate trick.  Dr. Meyer is a brilliant scientist.

Yes, they do.

No, it's not.

See my top response above.

No, you are.

---

It shows how the machines function.

It does not support your ID bollocks nor is nature  a legit science site a supporter of ID garbage in fact it's staunchly against ID in favour of REAL science .

Any source which posts ID will just be called an illegitimate source by you guys so it's pointless debate.  It's just a debate trick is all, even when numerous reputable sources are provided.

---

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

---

It shows how the machines function.

Information always come from intelligence?




So i am informed by the dumbest fuck i’ve ever encountered.

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

Feelings are mutual.

God is the primordial One.  He is eternal.

---

DNA contains information.  

Even if true it proves nothing 

Information always comes from an intelligence.  

Assertion 

DNA information is designed.

Baseless conclusion

Disagree

---

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 .

Exactly, using God's materials.

No, it's not.

No, it's not.

[popeyespappy]

Reputable sources. lol

Aren't you tired of our "straw man, ridicule, and other manipulative debating tactics" yet? Why don't you run on back to Christard Forums and gloat for a while?

[Anomalocaris]

A prediction of “you will never find” is no prediction at all unless one waits to the end of time.

A prediction is “this is what you will find”.  A unique prediction is “this is what you will find because....,and no one else will forecast this find because...”.

Fair enough.  You will never find a natural cause for the information in DNA, I predict.  Information always comes from an intelligence.

---

No he didn't and yes it nothing but an assertion . Meyers is a fraud.



Nope because the video's don't support your case . And there is no such thing as an atheist worldview .

Yes there is it's wrong 



Dembski is a fraud and his probability argument has already been refuted by real scientists .There is no design inference .It's a crock of shit .


Nop your just blind

You all just try to discredit the ID scientists, many of which are brighter than you.  It's a debate trick.  Dr. Meyer is a brilliant scientist.

Yes, they do.

No, it's not.

See my top response above.

No, you are.

---

It does not support your ID bollocks nor is nature  a legit science site a supporter of ID garbage in fact it's staunchly against ID in favour of REAL science .

Any source which posts ID will just be called an illegitimate source by you guys so it's pointless debate.  It's just a debate trick is all, even when numerous reputable sources are provided.

---

Information always come from intelligence?




So i am informed by the dumbest fuck i’ve ever encountered.

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

Feelings are mutual.

God is the primordial One.  He is eternal.

So too all the information in DNA is eternal.

Modern physics specifies information can never be created or destroyed.  Ever.   Information that is the universe is eternal.  No intelligence is needed for it to have “come from”. No assumption is needed about it needing to create its own mother, fuck its own mother to give himself birth in order to save you from something it fAcilitated for doing something it fAcilitated.

[CDF47]

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.

He knows a code always comes from a programmer.  It's that simple.  This code just happens to be the most sophisticated in the universe.  It is clearly designed.

---

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 

No, but males and females have the same body plan up to a certain point in the womb and that is why they are there.

---

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 .

Disagree.

---

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.

Just showing the facts again as it was brought up again.

---

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 .

Didn't refute anything.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

He knows a code always comes from a programmer.  It's that simple.  This code just happens to be the most sophisticated in the universe.  It is clearly designed.

No, he does not know. He assumes his limited experience is generally applicable to fields far outside his experience and education and conflates assumptions with knowledge.

[Minimalist]

I believe in the fall of man

Ah, see, here you actually produce evidence that you are a fucking moron.  Keep going along that track.  Maybe you'll get somewhere.  Or maybe you'll get hit by a train.

[CDF47]

Explain the Cambrian Explosion.  There was an explosion of life over 10 years (mainly over 5 years) with no successive intermediaries.  16 life forms were found.  How did that happen.  These were brand new body plans.

That's pile of shit. the explosion took 25 million  years. And we have found plenty of  gradual fossils thou not as many as other periods . But  we should expect fossils of the period to be rare as conditions were poor for fossilization and the destruction of fossil beds  on the sea bed would have been common due to seismic activity in that period  . And once again your going back to your fallacy of "if we have not found it .So it does not exist.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

The peak was a 5 - 10 million years was the main part of it I meant.  My typo trying to respond to all these posts.

[Angrboda]

The article below provides better information on irreducible complexity:

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

As I pointed out to you earlier, arguments such as the one in this article are arguments from ignorance which are invalid by definition.

Behe's claim that these structures are irreducibly complex rests on the idea that precursor systems have not been found (even though they have), when he needs to show that precursor systems are not possible, which he has not done.

That's a classic argument from ignorance.