DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

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.

Agreed.  Glad to see you post.

---

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.

You didn't really argue one point here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Something I've been trying to drill down for some time, is where creationists got the idea that information only comes from minds.  Not their half baked arguments to that effect, the actual moment in time that spawned the assertion.

[CDF47]

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

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.
[/quote]

I think some of the reason they do that is debate tactic.

---

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.

Yeah, I think the general rudeness tactics they use keeps many people away from posting.

---

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.

I think he clearly stated it is obvious a Designer exists in his first post.  DNA contains information which comes from a mind.  It is common sense he stated in another post.

---

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.

Here we go with CDF and whoever are the same poster nonsense again.  Didn't that already happen with Ev?

---

At work.

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

Wait? What?

As I posted. I've crossed Youtubz of that fellow before.

I've heard/read rebuttals of the fellow before.

I was explaining that, specifically, he is talking about a subject that is NOT within his specific feild of education/knowledge.

I don't ask my car mechanic for advice on my kitchen plumbing.

I don't ask a nano-chemist (Sorry, his exact Doctorate escapes me atm) about evolutionary biochemistry.

Cheers.

Of course, try to attack the brilliant man's credibility again.  Seen this one before.

---

It is soooo funny!  I'm familiar with this, and he's probably one of the top 30 to 50 scientists in the world in his field.  He's not on the fringe.  I'm blown away.... I find it incredible that you'll dismiss the guy based on nothing.  This is just evidence that you're not even interested in evidence or knowledge of the facts in this area.  Amazing!  I look atheist stuff all the time... but you won't even watch a video.  Incredible!

Tell me the point you want to make from the video  ..... I am not going to wade through hundreds of videos by pseudoscienctists preaching God through the back door  ....

list your arguments showed in the video and the peer reviews that show its accepted by the scientific community and not just his particular God creed ....

I can send you tons of videos too  .... 

Look, I get it.  You're not going engage.  He's got nothing to tell you cause he's just a moron from outset.  I get it.  I just find incredible!  I mean, are you kidding?  If you knew who the guy was you'd be laughing too, or maybe crying.  But like I said, I get it.  He makes the point throughout the video.  You can listen to the first 15 to 20 minutes and get the point.  Or even skip to the middle of the video and get the point.  And of course, you're welcome to dispute what he says, but scientists don't dispute it.  They just don't.  And go ahead send me some video refutations.  I'll watch 'em!  And I'll virtually guarantee you that what this guy is saying will not have been refuted at all.  Even secular scientists largely agree with what he's saying.  They may not agree with his conclusion, but they agree with the basic facts he's presenting. Period...end of story.

---

At work.


Well... my layman's rebuttal was I  the post above.

I would expect the gentleman's knowledge on evolution to be as acurate as his knowledge as to the internal fundamentals of rocket plumbing.

But.... if you really want me to go the whole nine yards you'll have to wait for both myself to 'Not be at work' as well as getting in touch with someone who's into the studying of cancer biology.  

With the hope they have time for this little pocket of the interwebz and not, y'know, otherwise busy with real life things.

Cheers.

What rebuttal?  You're saying this man isn't qualified to comment on abiogenesis and what it takes to create life?  This is what this man does for a living!  And he does it so effectively, that his research and methods are moving into the mainstream multiple areas, which he describes in the first 20 minutes of the video.  With all due respect, you're just not giving this guy his due.  And I say that because I know what this guy actually does and am familiar with his brilliance.  But whatever... I mean, here you've got one of the most credible working commercially viable scientists in the world, certainly in the U.S., telling you the truth about abiogenesis, and you couldn't care less.  If it weren't so sad, it would be hilarious!
[/quote]

It's typical on here.

[no one]

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because.....

[Peebothuhlu]

---

At work.


Wait? What?

As I posted. I've crossed Youtubz of that fellow before.

I've heard/read rebuttals of the fellow before.

I was explaining that, specifically, he is talking about a subject that is NOT within his specific feild of education/knowledge.

I don't ask my car mechanic for advice on my kitchen plumbing.

I don't ask a nano-chemist (Sorry, his exact Doctorate escapes me atm) about evolutionary biochemistry.

Cheers.

Of course, try to attack the brilliant man's credibility again.  Seen this one before.

---

[/quote]

Pardon CDF47?

 Please expand upon my attacking some one's credibility?

I am explaining/pointing out that if some one is making a statment outside of their feild of expertise then their knowledge about said subject is on par with 'Other' folk.

If two experts in a particular subject talk about something then I, for one, hope to learn something simply by listening in on their discussion.

So, CDF47. You've stated before about your own back ground, yes?

Would it be fair of me to ask you to finely detail the internal gubbins of a high-tech rocket engine? Would I expect you to be able to succinctly explain all of the minute, detailed workings of said system?

Not at work.

[CDF47]

Something I've been trying to drill down for some time, is where creationists got the idea that information only comes from minds.  Not their half baked arguments to that effect, the actual moment in time that spawned the assertion.

It is evident everywhere we look.

---

This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because..... This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started replying to it, not know what it was, and they'll continue replying to it forever just because.....

LOL...Your point of this post is not true by the way.

---

---

Of course, try to attack the brilliant man's credibility again.  Seen this one before.

---

Pardon CDF47?

 Please expand upon my attacking some one's credibility?

I am explaining/pointing out that if some one is making a statment outside of their feild of expertise then their knowledge about said subject is on par with 'Other' folk.

If two experts in a particular subject talk about something then I, for one, hope to learn something simply by listening in on their discussion.

So, CDF47. You've stated before about your own back ground, yes?

Would it be fair of me to ask you to finely detail the internal gubbins of a high-tech rocket engine? Would I expect you to be able to succinctly explain all of the minute, detailed workings of said system?

Not at work.
[/quote]

The man is highly credible based on his credentials.  It was a gut reaction on here to attack his credentials though like every other scientist that speaks out.  Then the whole ID thing got drug around again for the millionth time.

[madog]

The man is highly credible based on his credentials.   
[/quote]

Did you watch the video?  ... The guy offers nothing towards the understanding of abiogenisis, .... his own words quote:- 'Nobody knows how that is done  ... nobody  .... '

He never offered anything as regards intelligent design, infact he doesn't even believe in ID

Anyone can point out what is not yet known in peer reviewed science, what was the point of his video?

[CDF47]

The man is highly credible based on his credentials.   

Did you watch the video?  ... The guy offers nothing towards the understanding of abiogenisis, .... his own words quote:- 'Nobody knows how that is done  ... nobody  .... '

He never offered anything as regards intelligent design, infact he doesn't even believe in ID

Anyone can point out what is not yet known in peer reviewed science, what was the point of his video?
[/quote]

I didn't listen to it all the way through.  I was only commenting on his credentials.  They are solid.  The video is good so far from what I have seen.

[The Grand Nudger]

Something I've been trying to drill down for some time, is where creationists got the idea that information only comes from minds.  Not their half baked arguments to that effect, the actual moment in time that spawned the assertion.

It is evident everywhere we look.

Didn't I specifically mention that I wasn't interested in your half baked arguments?  I;m wondering where the notion originated.  An attribution to source.
Do you know?

[CDF47]

It is evident everywhere we look.

Didn't I specifically mention that I wasn't interested in your half baked arguments?  I;m wondering where the notion originated.  An attribution to source.
Do you know?

The only known cause of information is the mind.  That is all there can be.