DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Rahn127]

CD - I asked the question about the painting because if you only had the painting itself, could you determine if the paint on it was there by design or arrived there through a natural process.

Instead of me blindly tossing sponges of paint at the canvas, what if the wind knocked over the bucket of sponges and they fell on the canvas.

By simply looking at the painting, there is no way for you to determine which scenario happened.

The other thing you must consider is that for any designer, the materials he or she works with must exist before the designer does.

If a designer exists, it is made of something. It exists as something. And the natural laws and forces it exists in must exist prior to it's own existence.

Otherwise you are giving attributes to something that doesn't exist.

And the god designer you speak of doesn't exist.

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='downbeatplumb' pid='1880304' dateline='1548492080']

Show us how it points to a designer. Simple things can lead to complexity, even functional complexity over time.
Show us the evidence for how a designer could have done it.
At the moment all you have is a argument from ignorance which has been pointed out since page one.

No, simple things do not lead to functional systems like this without a Designer's hand being involved.

That is simply incorrect. There are perfectly good mechanisms that can lead to functional systems without a designer.
I know you have seen what I'm talking about because many many times you have been shown it over the course of this thread.

And again you have not shown how a designer is a better answer, you have not shown how it did the designing, what it used to implement its design. You just say it did and that is good enough for you.


So given that there are well researched and evidenced alternatives to your idea of some sort of designer and that your idea of a designer has no evidence to support, it are you ready to concede that your initial premise is fatally flawed?

[Abaddon_ire]

Show us how it points to a designer. Simple things can lead to complexity, even functional complexity over time.
Show us the evidence for how a designer could have done it.
At the moment all you have is a argument from ignorance which has been pointed out since page one.

No, simple things do not lead to functional systems like this without a Designer's hand being involved.

Really? Why do you think that Langton's ant, operating on simple rules, always builds a highway regardless of initial conditions? Do you know? I bet you don't.

ETA: And you ignore England's research into self organising properties of inanimate matter because it is fatal to your argument. You don't even know who that is, do you? Shows how much you keep up with current research.

[Rahn127]

Or how about simple chemistry ?

Do you think a god is making atoms move and then holding them together in compounds or mixtures ?

How far down the rabbit hole are you wanting to go ?

[Abaddon_ire]

Or how about simple chemistry ?

Do you think a god is making atoms move and then holding them together in compounds or mixtures ?

How far down the rabbit hole are you wanting to go ?

There's the problem. According to CDF's claims, homeopathy must be true since their claims are that H2O retains information. Remember, molecules are not chemistry. They are god at work. That is the sum of "CDF's" testimony. He must perforce either accept homeopathy or reject his basic premise.

He wont like that.

[Rahn127]

Perhaps we need to redefine theism as a lack of understanding of science.

Atheists lack belief
Theists lack understanding

[Anomalocaris]

Perhaps we need to redefine theism as a lack of understanding of science.

Atheists lack belief
Theists lack understanding

Lack of understanding of science does not uniquely define theism.

Both theism and atheism have existed since time immemorial so both have existed for long before any hint of science existed to be understood.

It remains quite possible to be an atheist without understanding science, and it is also quite possible for some theist to understand aspects of science better than most atheists.

I think It takes an understanding of the method behind science substantially deeper than is commonly incolcated in the education systems of this country to really make a robust, as oppose to hearsay, case for atheism and against theism.

[no one]

It's not just the lack of understanding, but to vehemently reject that understanding. It's safer to remain in the dark than to let any light through that might disturb that sheltered little bubble hide away in.

[CDF47]

CD - I asked the question about the painting because if you only had the painting itself, could you determine if the paint on it was there by design or arrived there through a natural process.

Instead of me blindly tossing sponges of paint at the canvas, what if the wind knocked over the bucket of sponges and they fell on the canvas.

By simply looking at the painting, there is no way for you to determine which scenario happened.

The other thing you must consider is that for any designer, the materials he or she works with must exist before the designer does.

If a designer exists, it is made of something. It exists as something. And the natural laws and forces it exists in must exist prior to it's own existence.

Otherwise you are giving attributes to something that doesn't exist.

And the god designer you speak of doesn't exist.

With DNA it is like having the Mona Lisa painting in your hand.  Of course there was a painter of the Mona Lisa.  We find the same in nature.

---

Show us how it points to a designer. Simple things can lead to complexity, even functional complexity over time.
Show us the evidence for how a designer could have done it.
At the moment all you have is a argument from ignorance which has been pointed out since page one.

No, simple things do not lead to functional systems like this without a Designer's hand being involved.

That is simply incorrect. There are perfectly good mechanisms that can lead to functional systems without a designer.
I know you have seen what I'm talking about because many many times you have been shown it over the course of this thread.

And again you have not shown how a designer is a better answer, you have not shown how it did the designing, what it used to implement its design. You just say it did and that is good enough for you.


So given that there are well researched and evidenced alternatives to your idea of some sort of designer and that your idea of a designer has no evidence to support, it are you ready to concede that your initial premise is fatally flawed?

Simple things do not lead to an extremely complex and functional system like DNA.  A Creator devised the code.

---

No, simple things do not lead to functional systems like this without a Designer's hand being involved.

Really? Why do you think that Langton's ant, operating on simple rules, always builds a highway regardless of initial conditions? Do you know? I bet you don't.

ETA: And you ignore England's research into self organising properties of inanimate matter because it is fatal to your argument. You don't even know who that is, do you? Shows how much you keep up with current research.

Please explain how inanimate matter turns to a living system.

---

Or how about simple chemistry ?

Do you think a god is making atoms move and then holding them together in compounds or mixtures ?

How far down the rabbit hole are you wanting to go ?

I believe the God of this universe is in control of everything but has given man free will to think and act on his own.

[pocaracas]

Please explain how inanimate matter turns to a living system.

If I explain this to you, but provide no references at all for it.... will you accept it and retract all these 1000+ pages of nonsense?