DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Anomalocaris]

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.

I see natural processes as blind processes since there is no intelligence involved.  I do not believe the functional DNA process and molecular machines could have come about by blind processes.

Your believe is irrelevant.    Belief gets stronger with willful repetition, which is why you repeat it. Facts don’t change because of willful repetition. This is why belief is irrelevant to facts.

The fact that you need to keep chanting your belief and can not provide more factual argument is why your belief is just an annoying idiosyncrcy of yours and of no value whatnso ever to the discovery of facts. The fact that you have to keep intoning faith in whatever maga church shithole you attend is strong indication Jesus is a belief that requires a repetition and not a fact that would require none.

[CDF47]

Much truth comes out of the Discovery Institute but it is not everything I state.

Discovery institute is a house of charlatans.  It is no surprise that what it says should be pleasing to your Christian ears because Christianity itself is a cult manufactured by charlatans.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. Behe are not charlatans.

[The Grand Nudger]

Trouble is that they've been shown to be.

[CDF47]

-and yet you believe that a wizard played in the mud.  

Your personal credulity or incredulity is completely uninformative.  "I can't believe that man will ever go to the moon".  "I can't believe that man will ever fly"  "I cant believe that the heart can be operated on".  All of these things we're beyond the scope of what people far more educated than yourself believed, at different points in time, as well.  They were all wrong.  They, at least, could articulate a valid reason for why them found themselves so incredulous.  You haven't managed to do so in 1k pages...even though everyone here knows why, as do you, lol.

That is different from man explaining functional information in the cell.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it? Why?

[Anomalocaris]

Discovery institute is a house of charlatans.  It is no surprise that what it says should be pleasing to your Christian ears because Christianity itself is a cult manufactured by charlatans.

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. Behe are not charlatans.

They are.   The fact that they say thing pleasing to you is no evidence that they are not charlatans.

In fact, because you are so Christian and confused, Saying things pleasing to you while claiming to do so from science is direct evidence that these persons are charlatans.

Charlatans are those who says things likely to be believed due to the cognitive and psychological weaknesses of the listeners, fabricate support for these to further enhance their credibility, all in order to gain trust and authority.

[CDF47]

Is it?  Why?

Because that is impossible.

---

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer and Dr. Behe are not charlatans.

They are.   The fact that they say thing pleasing to you is no evidence that they are not charlatans.

In fact, because you are so Christian and confused, Saying things pleasing to you while claiming to do so from science is direct evidence that these persons are charlatans.

That's an ad hominem.

[Angrboda]

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.

I see natural processes as blind processes since there is no intelligence involved.  I do not believe the functional DNA process and molecular machines could have come about by blind processes.

Well, you're welcome to believe what you like. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is whether you have good reasons for believing what you do. And as a side note, evolution isn't a blind process, so your belief is about something other than evolution, even if evolution were the entire story, which it is not. However if you believe that supposedly blind processes such as what you believe evolution to be cannot produce those things, without good reasons for believing it, then your belief is simply irrational and worthy of neither respect nor similar belief.

So the question becomes, do you have good reasons for believing that natural processes (not blind processes, as that's a straw man) cannot produce such things?

If not, your 1,000+ page screed is worth absolutely nothing other than as a display of how religion turns people into ignorant and irrational twats.

So, do you?

[The Grand Nudger]

Is it?  Why?

Because that is impossible.

What's impossible...and that was, amusingly, the claim made about all three things mentioned. You've only showed a similarity in claiming so.

[Anomalocaris]

Is it?  Why?

Because that is impossible.

---

They are.   The fact that they say thing pleasing to you is no evidence that they are not charlatans.

In fact, because you are so Christian and confused, Saying things pleasing to you while claiming to do so from science is direct evidence that these persons are charlatans.

That's an ad hominem.

It only sounds like as hominem, it is not.

Reflect upon how it came to be that you’ve become so stricken that factual description of your defects would sound like ad hominem in normal discourse with an average person?

The cause in your case seem to have to do with the cult of Jesus by which you’ve sadly become so besotted.