DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[madog]

I have been attempting to do so, but I must say that many people are so nasty and rude,  

You came onto an atheist forum and STATED God exists, not you believe God exists. Then you fail to offer any evidence .....

I am sure if I went onto an Christian forum and stated God does not exist, rather than I don't believe God exists. Then simply state 'because my book says so', I would have had a similar backlash.

[pocaracas]

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). 

If you're going to do that with every piece of information that's out there, then how do you expect to ever find any information that doesn't come from a mind?

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?

Dude... I give you all of quantum mechanics as a counter example of this paragraph.
Common-sense experience is good enough up to a point.

[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.

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.

Hmmmmm.... perhaps the forum needs (Or has and I've missed it) a "One on one" corner?

From myself, personally you'll find this is my usual posting demeanor to which others such as Mathilda and DLJ can give evidence for.

Also... I kind of wonder if you would describe your position, like I asked?

If not here in CDF47 rather train wreck of a thread, then in the 'Introduction' part of the forum where people must be nice.

It's the rules there, you know.

Cheers.

[Guard of Guardians]

I have been attempting to do so, but I must say that many people are so nasty and rude,  

You came onto an atheist forum and STATED God exists, not you believe God exists. Then you fail to offer any evidence .....

I am sure if I went onto an Christian forum and stated God does not exist, rather than I don't believe God exists. Then simply state 'because my book says so', I would have had a similar backlash.

Taken in context, I didn't do what which you are accusing me of.  I was responding to a post.  As for evidence, if logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence for you, then yes, a lot of evidence would necessarily be off the table, though certainly not all.  However, I think that is an entirely naive to take, and I mean that in the most serious and non-pejorative sense.  Think of all of the areas of life that would be destroyed by that way of thinking.  Legal proceedings would come to an absolute hault overnight.  Even our personal relationships would suffer, as we wouldn't be able to reason from a persons behavior toward us, to their ultimate intent.  If there is no evidential value in logical reasoning, much of human existence would end up falling apart.  It is possible that I'm deluded, but as of yet, I have no evidence to suggest that is so.  Those who hold positions other than my own are showing themselves to be rude, crass, and generally uninterested in discussion.  Instead, they make assertions, deride, and name-call.  In that context, I'm not tempted to think of myself as deluded.  And you can imagine whatever hypothetical backlash you like.  I would no treat you in the manner I have been treated...simple as that.

[downbeatplumb]

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.

Information only originates from a mind is rather problematical problem for theists.
if  god existed it would be complex if processes information and formulates plans to achieve its results.  
BUT in that case god must have come from a mind who created its information.

I would like to point out the use of the word "obvious" in your diatribe. A term that CDF has used time and again in place of providing evidence to back up whatever ludicrous claim he is making that day. Do you know him because your use of words is very similar.

[madog]

You came onto an atheist forum and STATED God exists, not you believe God exists. Then you fail to offer any evidence .....

I am sure if I went onto an Christian forum and stated God does not exist, rather than I don't believe God exists. Then simply state 'because my book says so', I would have had a similar backlash.

As for evidence, if logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence for you, then yes, a lot of evidence would necessarily be off the table,  

Try me with a true premise that truly leads to God? ... no shit lists please .....

or I will refer you to the madogological argument

1) Whatever falls can be higher

2) If there is nothing solid higher then its floating

3) If you can float then you can walk on water

4) Therefore Madog can walk on water

[Guard of Guardians]

 
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?   

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 
[/quote]

The fact that something isn't taught in school goes no distance toward telling us about the truth or falsity of the thing in question.  If you're referring to the Dover court case, the people involved in I.D. didn't support the idea of attempting to teach I.D. in the school.  They were simply called to testify.  This review of the origin of life question by James Tour is quite interesting.  I would highly recommend you watch it.  Incidentally, James Tour is a synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology. He's the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston Texas.

[downbeatplumb]

As for evidence, if logical reasoning from true premises can never constitute evidence for you, then yes, a lot of evidence would necessarily be off the table,  

Try me with a true premise that truly leads to God? ... no shit lists please .....

or I will refer you to the madogological argument

1) Whatever falls can be higher

2) If there is nothing solid higher then its floating

3) If you can float then you can walk on water

4) Therefore Madog can walk on water

You can use "logical reasoning" to come to any conclusion you want.
The only way to get to what is really happening is ACTUAL evidence that can be scientifically verified.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Oh, please no!

Not that fellow.

I'm sorry but he's terribly tedious to listen to.

As for rebuttals? I'd need to link in with some 'Proper' biologist freinds.

Since, you'll note, the offered expertise of said fellow is in 'Tiny stuff' (Yes, I'm attempting humour... even if it's rather facitously ) and NOT in something like... oh, biology or anthropology.

Cheers.

[Guard of Guardians]

At work.

Oh, please no!

Not that fellow.

I'm sorry but he's terribly tedious to listen to.

As for rebuttals? I'd need to link in with some 'Proper' biologist freinds.

Since, you'll note, the offered expertise of said fellow is in 'Tiny stuff' (Yes, I'm attempting humour... even if it's rather facitously  ) and NOT in something like... oh, biology or anthropology.

Cheers.

Hey, if you don't want the information, you should just say so.