DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Loudmouth]

Given the choice between a million happy coincidences and one intelligent agent at work, the latter requires less assumptions.

You apparently don't know how parsimony works. We don't have to assume that mutations and selection exist. We can directly observe them. Your intelligent agent is not observed, so it has to be assumed. That makes the intelligent agent the less parsimonious explanation.

 

[Loudmouth]

By what I have experienced during such discussions, the atheists always suddenly shift the subject from a purely ID perspective to that of deities, a deity, goddesses, a god, or God. In fact, they even enthusiastically bring in Spaghetti Monsters, Unicorns, fairies, Santa Clause and all sorts of mystical creatures. Then they act all surprised when the ID proponent responds relevantly to the deviation?

By what I have experienced during such discussions, the ID/creationists try to change the topic from evidence to whatever other topic they can find.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good thread. No great thread.

Evolutionary goo does not create DNA.

Yet another post with an assertion devoid of any evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks for the encouraging feedback. Yes I agree 100%. There is definitely a designing mind revealed and easily detectable in our DNA among many other things in nature.

Then please describe the scientific methodology for detecting this intelligence.

From our standpoint it takes a enormous stretch of the imagination to deny it and sometimes we might wonder whether the denials are really as sincere as they claim to be. But when we consider that this denial has been infused educationally and propagated by the media in a concerted effort over the stretch of decades, then it is no wonder that it seems is so easily adopted and so prominent today.

We have the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Most Christians do not try to disguise anything. We are straight out saying it is wrong. Science disguises science as being truth which is why science teaches evolution is true, but it has not been proven true to the point that there is proof of no God.

We don't have to disprove God any more than we need to disprove that there are monsters under every bed. It is up to those who claim God does exist to offer positive evidence for their claim. Lacking such evidence, there is no compelling reason to believe that God does exist.

As to evolution, it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. It is based on mountains of scientific data that even you can analyze for yourself.

It would be great if you could PROVE GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

Burden of proof fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good thread. No great thread.

Evolutionary goo does not create DNA.

Sadly Radrook, like most creationists, does not understand the nature of evidence. A dishonest video is never evidence. And your education seems to be a bit lacking too. If you are talking about the initial forming of DNA that is not a problem for the theory of evolution. That is part of abiogenesis, a separate but related probem. And it is rather well understood where new DNA comes from. You should know that you never go to creationist videos if you want real answers to science questions.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Yet another post with an assertion devoid of any evidence.

Everyone thinks their 'opinion' is evidence. I've heard more opinion than evidence.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Sadly Radrook, like most creationists, does not understand the nature of evidence. A dishonest video is never evidence. And your education seems to be a bit lacking too. If you are talking about the initial forming of DNA that is not a problem for the theory of evolution. That is part of abiogenesis, a separate but related probem. And it is rather well understood where new DNA comes from. You should know that you never go to creationist videos if you want real answers to science questions.

Well why don't you give me the 100 word synopsis on the 'evidence of where DNA comes from? I do like it when people support their claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Everyone thinks their 'opinion' is evidence. I've heard more opinion than evidence.

That's what we keep telling the ID/creationists. They think their opinions are evidence. Perhaps you could help them understand this.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well why don't you give me the 100 word synopsis on the 'evidence of where DNA comes from? I do like it when people support their claims.

We don't know where the first life came from. More importantly, we don't need to know where the first life came from in order to understand how life changed once it was here.

To help you understand this further, "I don't know" is not the same as "God did it". It isn't as if "God did it" is the go to answer when we have no other answers. God isn't a synonym for ignorance.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Given the choice between a million happy coincidences and one intelligent agent at work, the latter requires less assumptions.

Not really; when the 'million happy coincidences' are the demonstrable consequences of a single assumed principle, they are a million happy confirmations of that principle. If that single principle is a natural consequence of the world and does not require the assumption of an unexplained additional entity, it is more parsimonious.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...God isn't a synonym for ignorance.

Sometimes I wonder

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well why don't you give me the 100 word synopsis on the 'evidence of where DNA comes from? I do like it when people support their claims.

It's not that long - new DNA comes from gene, chromosome, and genome duplication, and subsequent mutations.

"Evolution by gene duplication is understood to be an important source of novelty in evolution, providing for an expanded repertoire of molecular activities. The underlying mutational event of duplication may be a conventional gene duplication mutation within a chromosome, or a larger-scale event involving whole chromosomes (aneuploidy) or whole genomes (polyploidy). A classic view ... is that duplication creates redundancy, and redundancy provides fuel for innovation. Knowledge of evolution by gene duplication has advanced more rapidly in the past 15 years due to new genomic data, more powerful computational methods of comparative inference, and new evolutionary models."[wikipedia]​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well why don't you give me the 100 word synopsis on the 'evidence of where DNA comes from? I do like it when people support their claims.

You made a rather bad error. You seemed to think that DNA was a problem for evolution. It isn't. That shows a lack of understanding on your part. If you can own up to your error I will gladly meet your request. If you can't then no amount of evidence will convince you and I would be wasting my time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not that long - new DNA comes from gene, chromosome, and genome duplication, and subsequent mutations.

"Evolution by gene duplication is understood to be an important source of novelty in evolution, providing for an expanded repertoire of molecular activities. The underlying mutational event of duplication may be a conventional gene duplication mutation within a chromosome, or a larger-scale event involving whole chromosomes (aneuploidy) or whole genomes (polyploidy). A classic view ... is that duplication creates redundancy, and redundancy provides fuel for innovation. Knowledge of evolution by gene duplication has advanced more rapidly in the past 15 years due to new genomic data, more powerful computational methods of comparative inference, and new evolutionary models."[wikipedia]​

Oh well, I was hoping that he would be honest enough to admit that he screwed up.

 

[ToBeLoved]

We don't know where the first life came from. More importantly, we don't need to know where the first life came from in order to understand how life changed once it was here.

To help you understand this further, "I don't know" is not the same as "God did it". It isn't as if "God did it" is the go to answer when we have no other answers. God isn't a synonym for ignorance.

You don't know is not the same as "God did not do it" either.
That is my point.

Being anti-God is not a synonym for ignorance either.

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't know is not the same as "God did not do it" either.
That is my point.

I don't have to disprove a claim in order to not believe in it.

Do you automatically believe everything that people claim if there is no evidence at hand to disprove it?

Being anti-God is not a synonym for ignorance either.

Asking for evidence is being "anti-God"?

 

[ToBeLoved]

You made a rather bad error. You seemed to think that DNA was a problem for evolution. It isn't. That shows a lack of understanding on your part. If you can own up to your error I will gladly meet your request. If you can't then no amount of evidence will convince you and I would be wasting my time.

Then a brief synopsis will be all the more easy for you. If DNA isn't a problem for evolution.

If you choose not to, It's because you don't know and then you would be wasting my time.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't have to disprove a claim in order to not believe in it.

You are arguing with me. Agree with me and you have to do nothing.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't have to disprove a claim in order to not believe in it.

Do you automatically believe everything that people claim if there is no evidence at hand to disprove it??

Can you please stop talking about it if you don't know already. I'll let you off the hook.