DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Pat Mustard]

Sorry for my tardy response!  The holidays were a blur, as I'm sure you can relate!

Did Santy come?

---

I didn't say for sure but there is a story about it.

And there we have it, Mr Inquisition confirms he get's his "knowledge" from a pair of scammers, one of whom died before the rapture he often predicted he would live to see.

[CDF47]

Slacker??? I provided mountains of evidence in this thread for 1100 pages.  Not sure what more to add.  I spent much my life pondering these questions and didn't find the answer until I found DNA and the universe fine-tuning.

Not finding an answer and on that basis concluding something else is an argument from ignorance and is an invalid way to reach a conclusion, as has already been pointed out to you several times recently, and many times over the course of this thread.  Do you have any actual, VALID evidence for your claim that this information could not exist by dint of natural means alone?  I have multiple times in the past few days explained why what you have provided isn't evidence for what you have claimed.  If you don't have a valid issue with my arguments about your evidence, then simply repeating your ill-founded belief that what you have provided is evidence simply demonstrates your incompetence.  You were given two clear options in my last post.  Instead of choosing either, you instead simply choose to repeat your bullshit claim.  Nobody gives a rat's ass what you claim if you cannot back that claim up with reason.  Repeating your assertion is NOT backing it up with reason, it's just more irrational assertion.

I'm going to keep repeating the question until you either put up or shut up.

The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes.  A super-intelligence was involved.  Some people actually think we were seeded here by aliens actually.  I think that is totally false.  An intelligence outside the boundaries of this universe was involved.  From there turn to theology.  I will pray for you.

---

Sorry for my tardy response!  The holidays were a blur, as I'm sure you can relate!

Did Santy come?

---

I didn't say for sure but there is a story about it.

And there we have it, Mr Inquisition confirms he get's his "knowledge" from a pair of scammers, one of whom died before the rapture he often predicted he would live to see.

And which scammers are these?

[sdelsolray]

A mountain of evidence is provided throughout this thread starting on page 1.

Too bad for you, if what is presented as "evidence" is not accepted as evidence, it's worthless. 
Your evidence is worthless. It's why there are specific "rules of evidence" for specific situations, and peer-review.

In light of your lightning bolt nonsense, it's now less than worthless. 

You do realize that if your deity did something to change the course of the lightning bolt, it would have had to change the values of the quantum structure of the entire universe ?
You really think YOU are that important ? (Look up the Pauli Exclusion Principle). 
LOL

Keep in mind that CDF47 does not think for himself about the DNA/information claims he makes. He merely parrots the mere assertions, lies, misrepresentations and intellectual dishonesty of his Discovery Institute heroes. Oh course, he invents his own lies too, like the one immediately above. He is an empty vessel, at least on this topic.

[pocaracas]

The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes. 

Again, this is an argument from incredulity and is a known faulty kind of argument, or fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

Were you to read the book I advised you to read, you'd maybe understand better how that complex code could have arisen naturally.
But you choose to remain ignorant of that and to continue producing this fallacy.
Which brings us to the real question here: why?
Why do you persist with a fallacious argument?
Why do you insist on being ignorant?
Why don't you think and reason that maybe what several of us have repeatedly told you is true (that your argument is fallacious) and that maybe you have either been deceived, or managed to deceive yourself on this subject?
Why, CDF, why?

[The Grand Nudger]

The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes.  A super-intelligence was involved.  Some people actually think we were seeded here by aliens actually.  I think that is totally false.  An intelligence outside the boundaries of this universe was involved.  From there turn to theology.  I will pray for you.

It's almost as if we've reset, and the last 1k pages never happened.  No, CDF...just No.  This shit has all been covered already.

Put up or shut up.  You got a one thousand page mulligan...time to fucking produce.

End...of.

[Amarok]

The functional information is the proof. 

Assertion 

That code could not have arisen from natural processes. 

Assertion 

A super-intelligence was involved. 

Assertion 

Some people actually think we were seeded here by aliens actually. 

Logical regress 

I think that is totally false. 

Opinion 

An intelligence outside the boundaries of this universe was involved. 

Assertion 

From there turn to theology. 

It's worthless 

I will pray for you.

I'll think for you

[Bucky Ball]

DCF47
The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes. 

Totally false. Argument from ignorance, (as well as incredulity ... as stated above)
In this thread, Jack Szostack's  (Harvard) exposition of a possible pathway (one of many) has NEVER even been addressed with respect to SPECIFIC errors in the proposed chemistry. 

[LadyForCamus]

The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes. 

Again, this is an argument from incredulity and is a known faulty kind of argument, or fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

Were you to read the book I advised you to read, you'd maybe understand better how that complex code could have arisen naturally.
But you choose to remain ignorant of that and to continue producing this fallacy.
Which brings us to the real question here: why?
Why do you persist with a fallacious argument?
Why do you insist on being ignorant?
Why don't you think and reason that maybe what several of us have repeatedly told you is true (that your argument is fallacious) and that maybe you have either been deceived, or managed to deceive yourself on this subject?
Why, CDF, why?

Maybe, because he’s trolling us? 😛

[Angrboda]

Not finding an answer and on that basis concluding something else is an argument from ignorance and is an invalid way to reach a conclusion, as has already been pointed out to you several times recently, and many times over the course of this thread.  Do you have any actual, VALID evidence for your claim that this information could not exist by dint of natural means alone?  I have multiple times in the past few days explained why what you have provided isn't evidence for what you have claimed.  If you don't have a valid issue with my arguments about your evidence, then simply repeating your ill-founded belief that what you have provided is evidence simply demonstrates your incompetence.  You were given two clear options in my last post.  Instead of choosing either, you instead simply choose to repeat your bullshit claim.  Nobody gives a rat's ass what you claim if you cannot back that claim up with reason.  Repeating your assertion is NOT backing it up with reason, it's just more irrational assertion.

I'm going to keep repeating the question until you either put up or shut up.

The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes.  A super-intelligence was involved.  Some people actually think we were seeded here by aliens actually.  I think that is totally false.  An intelligence outside the boundaries of this universe was involved.  From there turn to theology.  I will pray for you.

There is functional information. True. However, your second statement, that this code could not have arisen from natural processes is a claim, and that claim isn't directly supported by the first fact. There being functional information does not necessarily imply that this functional information could not have arisen from natural processes. You've done an admirable job of supporting the first statement. However you've done basically nothing to support the second statement. And that is where the issue lies, because without the second statement, there is no reason to conclude that a god or designer was necessary for this functional information to exist. Simply providing evidence that there is functional information doesn't do that. Additionally, it has been pointed out that functional information, though not DNA, can arise through natural processes. So like any creationist defending a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, you need to defend that while functional information can arise in other contexts, it supposedly cannot arise in this context. You need to demonstrate some fact which limits the latter case, but not the former. Again, you have not done so. And that is why I labeled you a slacker, because you have demonstrated something about which there is only limited dispute, namely that there exists functional information in DNA, and what that means. However, that fact alone does not get you to the conclusion that a god or designer is necessary, because if there is a natural path to such information, then no god or designer is necessary. Your belief that this functional information could not have arisen through natural means is nothing more than incredulity at the possibility that it could, and an appeal to incredulity is a fallacious and invalid argument. You cannot secure your conclusion that way. You need to provide some actual reason, beyond mere incredulity or an argument from ignorance, as to why that functional information could not have arisen naturally. This you have not done. That is why I keep pointing out that you have not provided evidence for your claim. The claim that there is functional information in DNA is little disputed. What that means for your second claim, that it could not arise naturally, is in great dispute, and it is that second claim which you need to provide evidence for, and for which you have not provided said evidence. Failure to secure and support that second claim means your overall argument, that a god or designer was necessary, would fail. Since it is that overall argument, and not your claim that there is functional information in DNA that is at issue, your securing that fact, and not the second, is of no use to you.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

DCF47
The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes. 

Totally false. Argument from ignorance, (as well as incredulity ... as stated above)
In this thread, Jack Szostack's  (Harvard) exposition of a possible pathway (one of many) has NEVER even been addressed with respect to SPECIFIC errors in the proposed chemistry. 

"Possible", so inconclusive. Next.