An intelligent design, requires an intelligent designer, it should be obvious...?

[TagliatelliMonster]

DNA is self-checking, self-repairing, self-copying, and if it is damaged beyond repair, can self-destruct. It can replace missing data.

So? We've already established that it is an amazing molecule and a complex one at that.

That does not answer @Loudmouth's question.
He's not asking about how amazed you are. He's asking you how it's evidence of design.

Think what it must have been like before a few thousand years of degeneration, when there were giants and man lived to a thousand years.

lol!

Natural processes are limited.

Sure. Are you saying that DNA crosses that limit?
If yes, then this is the part where you explain how and how you determined that.
Be specific.

That's why scientists looking for intelligence are looking for simple things. A straight line, a series of numbers or other repeating pattern. Kind of like you find in DNA.

How are those things present in DNA and how are they evidence of design?

 

[Loudmouth]

DNA is self-checking, self-repairing, self-copying, and if it is damaged beyond repair, can self-destruct.

All of those are false. If you have pure DNA in solution it can't check anything, does not self repair, does not copy itself, and does not self destruct.

Also, you still haven't explained how this is evidence for evolution.

It can replace missing data.

It definitely can't do that.

Think what it must have been like before a few thousand years of degeneration, when there were giants and man lived to a thousand years.

What giants? Evidence please.

Natural processes are limited. That's why scientists looking for intelligence are looking for simple things. A straight line, a series of numbers or other repeating pattern. Kind of like you find in DNA.

Still waiting for that evidence.

 

[pat34lee]

1. All of those are false. If you have pure DNA in solution it can't check anything, does not self repair, does not copy itself, and does not self destruct.
2. Also, you still haven't explained how this is evidence for evolution.
3. What giants? Evidence please.

1. An AI or program on CD does nothing either. They run on a computer, and DNA works only in a cell, as designed.

2. Only intelligence can create language or codes. They are not spontaneous, and cannot be arrived at in stages or by accident.

3. Try looking up megafauna. You will find animals like these:

If you mean giant men in particular..
A giant mystery: 18 strange giant skeletons found in Wisconsin: Sons of god; Men of renown -- Sott.net

 

[Loudmouth]

1. An AI or program on CD does nothing either. They run on a computer, and DNA works only in a cell, as designed.

DNA, RNA, and proteins working together produce what we see in cells. That is what you are missing. It is proteins using RNA and DNA as templates that repairs DNA. DNA doesn't repair itself. When there is no complementary sequence in a DNA strand to use as template, the proteins can't reproduce the DNA that used to be there. That is another thing you have wrong. DNA repair is either copying the complementary strand of the double helix of DNA, or inserting new DNA where DNA from both strands has been removed.

2. Only intelligence can create language or codes. They are not spontaneous, and cannot be arrived at in stages or by accident.

Bare assertion.

3. Try looking up megafauna. You will find animals like these:

What you don't see is any evidence that there were ever giant humans.

If you mean giant men in particular..
A giant mystery: 18 strange giant skeletons found in Wisconsin: Sons of god; Men of renown -- Sott.net

There were tons of known hoaxes during that time. You need to present the actual bones and some science to back your claims.

 

[Radrook]

I find the argument presented in this video very compelling:

 

[pat34lee]

DNA, RNA, and proteins working together produce what we see in cells. That is what you are missing. It is proteins using RNA and DNA as templates that repairs DNA. DNA doesn't repair itself. When there is no complementary sequence in a DNA strand to use as template, the proteins can't reproduce the DNA that used to be there. That is another thing you have wrong. DNA repair is either copying the complementary strand of the double helix of DNA, or inserting new DNA where DNA from both strands has been removed.

Bare assertion.

What you don't see is any evidence that there were ever giant humans.

There were tons of known hoaxes during that time. You need to present the actual bones and some science to back your claims.

1. Cress overturns textbook genetics : Nature News

2. Just as abiogenesis is an assertion. Life comes from life, intelligence from intelligence, and it requires intelligence to create code or language.

3. That is because you differentiate giants from people. At what point do they change? How tall before you stop believing in them?

4. You know well that early museums and pro-evolution 'scientists' hid, destroyed or tried to discredit anything that put their theory's credibility at risk.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I find the argument presented in this video very compelling:

I do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Cress overturns textbook genetics : Nature News

"Instead, Pruitt speculates that the plants carry a previously undiscovered store of the related molecule RNA, that acts as a backup copy of DNA. Such molecules could be passed into pollen or seeds along with DNA and used as a template to correct certain genes. "It's the most likely explanation," Weigel agrees."
Cress overturns textbook genetics : Nature News

Again, this is an example of copying a nucleotide template.

2. Just as abiogenesis is an assertion. Life comes from life, intelligence from intelligence, and it requires intelligence to create code or language.

Still waiting for evidence that only an intelligence can create a code or language.

3. That is because you differentiate giants from people. At what point do they change? How tall before you stop believing in them?

How long before you start presenting real evidence?

4. You know well that early museums and pro-evolution 'scientists' hid, destroyed or tried to discredit anything that put their theory's credibility at risk.

Again, these are just assertions. You need evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find the argument presented in this video very compelling:

That video disproves ID/creationism. It is self evident.

 

[pat34lee]

Still waiting for evidence that only an intelligence can create a code or language.

How long before you start presenting real evidence? [on giants]

Again, these are just assertions. You need evidence.

There is no proving a negative.
Show me one code or language that spontaneously arose.
SETI is waiting.

I gave plenty of evidence on giants, some still living. Your disbelief doesn't make them disappear.

And what kind of evidence do you think there would be of a cover-up done by an organization like the Smithsonian? Not much, except maybe articles of items going in, never to be seen again. Those that don't get erased, get discredited. Ica stones for example. Blamed on a poor, small group of villagers, when there is no way they had the ability, much less time to carve all of them.

 

[Speedwell]

And what kind of evidence do you think there would be of a cover-up done by an organization like the Smithsonian?

What motive could they possibly have?

 

[Loudmouth]

There is no proving a negative.

Then don't base your argument on proving a negative.

Show me one code or language that spontaneously arose.
SETI is waiting.

Show me evidence that every code or language requires an intelligence.

I gave plenty of evidence on giants, some still living. Your disbelief doesn't make them disappear.

You cited known hoaxes. That doesn't count.

And what kind of evidence do you think there would be of a cover-up done by an organization like the Smithsonian?

If you have no evidence of a cover-up, then why are you claiming that there is a cover-up?

Not much, except maybe articles of items going in, never to be seen again. Those that don't get erased, get discredited. Ica stones for example. Blamed on a poor, small group of villagers, when there is no way they had the ability, much less time to carve all of them.

Only dishonest people cite Ica stones as real artifacts.

 

[pat34lee]

You cited known hoaxes. That doesn't count.
Only dishonest people cite Ica stones as real artifacts.

Last post to you until you learn manners.

Robert Wadlow is a hoax? It's easy to claim something when you don't bother reading it.

Only dishonest people...

 

[Loudmouth]

Last post to you until you learn manners.

Robert Wadlow is a hoax? It's easy to claim something when you don't bother reading it.

Only dishonest people...

Robert Wadlow isn't a race of human giants.

And yes, the Ica stones are known hoaxes. No honest person uses them as evidence.

 

[Radrook]

That video disproves ID/creationism. It is self evident.

Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

1. An AI or program on CD does nothing either. They run on a computer, and DNA works only in a cell, as designed.

2. Only intelligence can create language or codes. They are not spontaneous, and cannot be arrived at in stages or by accident.

3. Try looking up megafauna. You will find animals like these:

If you mean giant men in particular..
A giant mystery: 18 strange giant skeletons found in Wisconsin: Sons of god; Men of renown -- Sott.net

That 36 foot giant must have been terrifying!

 

[pat34lee]

That 36 foot giant must have been terrifying!

Something to make you want to find a nice cave to live in, as opposed to houses. So-called cave men didn't choose caves because they were too dumb to build.

 

[Radrook]

Something to make you want to find a nice cave to live in, as opposed to houses. So-called cave men didn't choose caves because they were too dumb to build.

Caves would definitely provide certain advantages. Especially if the giant involved is stupid enough to place his eyeball within spear-point striking distance of the cave entrance to see what's inside.

 

[pitabread]

I find the argument presented in this video very compelling:

It's not much of an argument though. It mainly rests of obfuscation of terms like "information" and resorts to false equivalence via poor analogies to make its point.

It's also one reason I don't like using things like language or books as a metaphor for DNA. It creates too many false impressions about what DNA is and how it works.

For example, at the end of the video where the guy is talking about information theory and how information can't spontaneously arise. Therefore he says, information in DNA has to be from intelligence. But notice they never bother to properly define "information"; they don't explain what the information in DNA actually *is* or what a unit measure of it is. They don't give you anything to really work with.

Rather than finding it compelling, it's actually quite lacking.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That 36 foot giant must have been terrifying!

The simple isometric scaling of the skeletons should tell you they're not real. Allometry will tell you why - "Isometric scaling is governed by the square-cube law. An organism which doubles in length isometrically will find that the surface area available to it will increase fourfold, while its volume and mass will increase by a factor of eight."

This means that, for a doubling of height (e.g. 6ft to 12ft), the skeleton must carry eight times the weight - the tallest man on record was just under 12ft, and despite skeletal thickening, had serious joint problems. Check the bone thickness of large animals; the skeletons of the so-called 'giants' show no signs of the necessary robustness. Also, the hydrostatic pressure difference from head to toe would require a radically different circulatory system, and the weight of the abdominal organs would require additional pelvic skeletal support. Much above 13' would probably not be physiologically sustainable for a recognizable humanoid.

Fakes.