DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I hope you all have a good Easter today!

Indeed CDF47!

Happy nail up day along with a happy zombie rising day!

[Guard of Guardians]

Welcome to the forums, CDF47. While DNA is certainly complex, many here will argue that the existence of DNA itself does not necessarily indicate design. After all, it is a rather simple thing whose content has become complex after eons of evolution.

I look forward to seeing your defense after others' objections.

Why would that need a defense?  There has to be a good objection first.  Even the simplest of living organisms is almost incomprehensibly complex, and we have no direct evidence that early life was massively less complex as you suggest.  In any case, DNA ultimately represents information, though people will fall all over themselves to deny such an obvious reality.  And of course, information only originates from mind(s).  It's all fairly straight forward, no matter how much time and effort is fruitlessly spent attempting to muddy up those clear waters.

[Abaddon_ire]

Once again, I have watched it. It is still bullshit. That will not change if I watch it yet again.

But more telling is the fact that you are utterly unable to express your ideas yourself and have to resort to the childish (lack of) effort of screaming "Watch this video".

Want to know why you have that problem? It is because the ideas you do not understand and are incompetently trying to express ARE NOT YOURS IN THE FIRST PLACE. You cannot explain any of it because you simply understand none of it.

It is no wonder you people are referred to as "sheep" in a "flock".

I think I explained it well. Re-read the OP and my posts.  I think you may be missing some things.

"Watch this youboob" is never an explanation for anything. Such an argument simply illustrates your ignorance. You are to thick to even attempt to explain anything. Anyway, for the sake of completeness, let us reread the OP.

DNA has a property that cannot be explained by natural processes.  

Lie.

Locked securely inside the double helix structure of DNA is a wealth of information in the form of precisely sequenced chemicals that scientists represent with the letters A, C, T, and G.

Hyperbole. It's chemistry.

In a written language information is communicated by a precise arrangement of letters.

False analogy. Another lie.

In the same way, the instruction necessary to assemble amino acids into proteins are conveyed by the sequences of chemicals arranged along the spine of the DNA.

Lie. DNA does not have a "spine". 

This chemical code has been called the “Language of Life”

Sure, I could call you a mushroom and then it would be true to claim that you have been likened to a mushroom. It would also be a horribly dishonest claim to make, yet you have no problem doing exactly that. Why?

and it is the most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the known universe.

This is a lie. None of it is remotely associated with truth. Whatever device you are using to post here proves you wrong.

So there you go, your OP was a load of cack handed bullshit claims and lies. No explanation was given because you have none.

Did you somehow think we would forget? Or that we couldn't look it up?

What a moron.

[vulcanlogician]

Welcome to the forums, CDF47. While DNA is certainly complex, many here will argue that the existence of DNA itself does not necessarily indicate design. After all, it is a rather simple thing whose content has become complex after eons of evolution.

I look forward to seeing your defense after others' objections.

Why would that need a defense?  There has to be a good objection first.

Not true. One can defend one's thesis from bad objections. It can even be a fruitive exercise on occasion. Like when there are common misconceptions.

Even the simplest of living organisms is almost incomprehensibly complex, and we have no direct evidence that early life was massively less complex as you suggest.  In any case, DNA ultimately represents information, though people will fall all over themselves to deny such an obvious reality.  And of course, information only originates from mind(s).  It's all fairly straight forward, no matter how much time and effort is fruitlessly spent attempting to muddy up those clear waters.

I don't accept that information only originates from mind(s)? Can you offer some proof of that?

And it looks like you simply read my post on the first page and replied to my comment there. What's up with that? I insist that you read the entire thread before we continue this conversation... just to make sure we're on the same page.

(j/k... welcome to the forum!)

[madog]

Why would that need a defense?   

It wouldn't if he kept his uneducated theories to himself  ..... however people like him (and you), that throw shit out with no proof, need to offer evidence or expect to be challenged 

[Guard of Guardians]

vulcanlogician wrote:

Not true. One can defend one's thesis from bad objections.

 
Yes, but if they are truly bad objections, one needn’t feel obliged to do so.  Substantive or interesting objections are one thing, but nonsense rhetorical objections are something entirely different.
 
 
 
vulcanlogician wrote:

It can even be a fruitive exercise on occasion.

 
It can be a fruitful exercise, but that’s up the individual’s judgement, as it is more often a waste of time.  Responding to every silly objection thrown out, largely by those not genuinely interested in answers, will simply get one bogged down in tangential issues that don’t ultimately matter.  The main and plain points should remain the focus, at least as much as is possible.
 
 
 
vulcanlogician wrote:

Like when there are common misconceptions.

 
I agree.  Misconceptions in atheist circles and in culture in general are pretty rampant when it comes to Christianity.  Most people are responding to things they picked up at a particular church or some charicature that doesn’t really correspond to Christianity in the historic sense.  Having said that, one has to wisely pick his/her battles.
 
 
 
vulcanlogician wrote:

I don't accept that information only originates from mind(s)? Can you offer some proof of that?

 
It’s just a case of abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation.  In addition, we simply have no examples of information that we know originated from non-mind(s).  There are areas, like Neo-Darwinian Evolution, where this is thought and often assumed to be the case, but it’s never been able to be demonstrated as such.  Absent some significant proof or demonstration that information does or even can be produced from non-mind(s), we are entirely justified in believing that the best explanation is the one that provides a cause which is actually known to produce the thing in question (i.e. information).  And of course, we know on the basis of our everyday uinform and repeated experience, that information routinely arises from mind(s).  The question really is, why would anyone need additional proof that such a thing is the case when our everyday common-sense experience screams out that such a thing is a clear and evident reality, onstensibly recognizeable to all?


 

vulcanlogician wrote:

And it looks like you simply read my post on the first page and replied to my comment there. What's up with that? I insist that you read the entire thread before we continue this conversation… just to make sure we're on the same page.

 
And no, I won’t be reading 1,300+ pages of comments and responses in order to make sure that we are …on the same page.  I responded to the original post, which was my intention from the start.  You may certainly choose not to respond to me any further, if that’s a problem.

---

Why would that need a defense?   

It wouldn't if he kept his uneducated theories to himself  ..... however people like him (and you), that throw shit out with no proof, need to offer evidence or expect to be challenged 

How do you know that his supposed theory is of the uneducated variety?  I don't recall anyone throwing "shit" either.  If you need proof of what he said, I'm fairly confident that any middle school or high school level biology textbook will provide sufficient proof or evidence of DNA as containing information/instructions that are essential for the growth and function of the organism from which it comes.  It's ironic that you would label what he said uneducated, when you're apparently not familiar with the basics of DNA.

[madog]

 

 
And no, I won’t be reading 1,300+ pages of comments and responses in order to make sure that we are …on the same page.   

OK, then maybe give your reasons if and why you believe 'DNA Proves Existence of a Designer' ?

Also include your views on Microevolution if you accept Microevolution and why a God would design something that could have detrimental effects?

---

[quote pid='1902528' dateline='1555832553']
 

How do you know that his supposed theory is of the uneducated variety?   
[/quote]

Sorry I answered your other post before seeing this post  .....

As far as I am aware, Intelligent design is not taught in most countries  .... as it is a religion and not science  (in the states ruled so in a court of law) .... if you come from a nation that teaches Intelligent design as science please state  .... but don't presume others are from your backward nation 

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Hello Guard of Guardians!

Or, perhaps, 'G G' for short?

Welcome to the forums and welcome to the depths of this thread.

How's about you give us your point of view and then we can all better understand things.

Much cheers.

[Gwaithmir]

---

Evolution is a designer. Via variation and selection, it serves to favor reproduction and shape things according to environmental conditions. God is not a possible designer candidate until you first prove the existence of God. Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution

It is a giant leap from natural causes to the genetic code.

---

Our resident science flunkie gives us the word.

It only appears to be a "giant leap" to the ignorant. You'll have to do better than personal incredulity. Get an education, numb nuts.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar...0/lines_08

[Guard of Guardians]

At work.

Hello Guard of Guardians!

Or, perhaps, 'G G' for short?

Welcome to the forums and welcome to the depths of this thread.

How's about you give us your point of view and then we can all better understand things.

Much cheers.

I have been attempting to do so, but I must say that many people are so nasty and rude, I'm not sure how successful you'll ultimately be in getting people to come on this forum and have an open discussion of the issues.  I tend to prefer one item at a time.  i find that when asked to provide views in a very general or broad sense, it's just an invitation to be overwhelmed by objections, questions, and comments that run the gamut and cannot be effectively dealt with by one person.  Some of my views have already been stated clearly in previous posts.  Anyone is free to respond to any of those comments.  Thank you for being far more cordial than most of the other members I've encountered.