The evidence for design and a designer - AS OF 10/27, SUMMARY MESSAGES ONLY

quote:

---

do you know every last variable concerning the workings of DNA? No?

---

No. As I have said in many messages before, I'm an oilfield man. But it's precisely for this reason that I am in favour of a designer. I do have some background in molecular biology, a requirement for my current position, though not to the extent that most others have, and I am convinced that I could spend my entire life attempting to understand DNA's inner workings completely. It can at LEAST be considered plausible that an intelligent designer was behind something this complex (complexity being that I could not begin to fully understand it, even with my small schooling on the subject).

quote:

---

What has that got to do with anything?

---

Formation of water, and any other matter by natural process is a requirement if there is no deity, leaving evolution aside. This forum is for evidence of a designer. I am saying that all the elements on earth are a prime example of a designer, being that water is the source of almost all life, and it is the most abundant fluid on the planet. Random accident?

quote:

---

Okay, on this, we more or less agree.

---

Good, then we can start by asking, again, how did complex structures, DNA to be specific, arise naturally?

quote:

---

You asked imbecilic questions that betray your failure

---

My stupid questions have betrayed failure? They have betrayed failure...think about that...

quote:

---

I love it when you guys pick up on my little signature!

---

You guys? What do you mean, you guys? You saying that cause I'm black?

quote:

---

Well, no, a central median trench with depths in excess of 7000' runs the length of the Red Sea.

---

I'm not sure who got the link, but there is a specific link on the map of the Red Sea that shows depths. You are wrong, I just don't care to find it...it's 5am here. Go find the link and look at the picture.

quote:

---

As you should have noticed, if you had quoted me accurately, I didn't say that DNA has no function. I said that it has no "intelligent function", no more so than a snowflake.

---

Sure it does. Though it is chemically driven and follows certain rules, it created you, top to bottom. DNA created your brain, which has intelligent and unique thought processes. DNA has design, function, and purpose. It falls under the same principles as anything else designed, such as a hammer, or a car. Though DNA is not supernaturally guided, neither are humans, yet humans design.

quote:

---

The function of DNA is to act as a template, as it were, for the production of proteins.

---

But isn't that the point? All complex things that are designed have blueprints, or a storage of information.BTW, not all DNA codes for proteins.

You mean a link like here? I found that link, I looked at that picture. It says what you are being told by everyone else.
Good thing it's only 1:30am here, otherwise I would not have been able to examine the first page of hits for the phrase "red sea topogrpahy" on Google Image search, huh?We now direct the jury's attention to exhibit A. See that big shiny strip right down the middle? It's dark blue and purple. We now observe exhibit B, a chart showing what depth is related to each colour.
Lo and behold, dark blue/purple is not representative of shallow waters. It is in fact, indicative of the exact opposite: deep, deep water. So deep that the weight of the water could crush you to death should you go even halfway down without a submersible vehicle.
At no point on the topography can one find any supposed "sand bar" in any location that would be considered valid as a crossing point. There is a fuck-off huge trench right down the middle* of the Red Fucking Sea. There is no sand bar across this trench. There was no crossing.So no sir, you are wrong, and quite emphatically so at that. Do you care to concede the point, or at the very least stop trying to fool people with the exact same internet capability as you?

I'm not wrong, no matter what time it is there.The Red Sea is evolving into an ocean, pulling apart from a central median trench which has a maximum depth of more than 7000'.I've already looked at charts, maps and satellite photos. I don't need to look for another. I know what is there. You don't.Not only is there a trench in your putative sandbar's way, there are no significant currents in the northern Red Sea with which to form massive sandbars.But why do you care? Why do you need the sandbar?Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Hi Dennis, Right. None of us has a complete understanding of the precise sequence of events that led to the formation of the first DNA, the first proteins, the first life. Given this, we can't meaningfully perform any calculations on the odds. To calculate the odds of a real event, you need to know all the variables. We don't know all the variables, so making arguments for a designer based on such odds is meaningless. Fine, you consider it plausible that life was designed; I do not object to this, you are entitled to your opinion. I am merely trying to point out that odds-based arguments for such a designer fall down on a number of points. Yes, I agree. Of course, it is possible to create water from hydrogen and oxygen, with no designer required, only physical and chemical forces, so this does not seem like a problem to me. Not at all. But ask yourself this; if there were no water on Earth, would we be having this conversation? No, of course not. We find life where there is water simply because it cannot arise anywhere else. It's like asking why we only find Birch Bolete mushrooms under birch trees. Coincidence? No, we find that to be the case simply because Birch Boletes cannot grow anywhere else apart from under birch trees. It's not a coincidence, but a requirement.This argument is fully answered by reference to the Anthropic Principle.I have no idea. That doesn't mean though, that we should simply throw up our hands and give up on trying to find a natural explanation. Once, people had no understanding of the natural mechanisms behind thunder, so they assumed that thunder was the province of a thunder god. They were wrong and I suspect that you are wrong to place your faith in a DNA god. It's only a matter of time before science steals his thunder as well. I hope you're joking. I have no idea who you are and have no way of knowing whether you are black, white or otherwise. For that matter, you don't know that I'm not black, other than me saying I'm not.By "you guys", I meant creationists. You guys brighten up my days, you really do.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I think you mean the Gulf of Aqaba (the area marked "A" on the top left map)

So, DNA is what designed humans? About time we had an IDiot admit to what this mysterious designer's identity was. And all those years, it was good ol' DNA! Fancy that!
Okay boys, pack it up, we found out the origin of life now. You can probably expect your Nobel Prize in the next couple of years, Dennis, once someone has checked the working. I wonder, would it be chemistry or medicine; possibly even physics? Heck, why not two at the same time. It is a pretty major discovery after all. Another brilliant discovery! Not only did DNA design humans, the DNA itself is the design for humans! How marvellous of our creator to not only give us life in general, but give each of us life personally and individually too! I reckon your Babble was onto something with the whole "I am everywhere with you" thing.
Crikey, Dennis, you're on a roll with this! Don't stop just because it's getting late. Not all of your car is used for moving you around the place, yet would you say the point of the car is to cool you down or provide you a comfortable seat?
The other parts that help with doing the main job don't change what the main job is. DNA codes to (eventually, following the whole tRNA/mRNA thing) form proteins. That is its job. And many complex things that were not designed contain a storage of information. The neuron structure in your brain, for instance, was not designed. Pretty damn sure that would count as complex if we looked at the myriad connections and functions, though.
Point being, storage of information does not imply design. Nor does complexity. That's one reason to dismiss your argument as unreasonable right there. But continuing:By stating first that "if something is complex and designed, it has a storage of information or blueprint" then observing that DNA "stores"* "information"* and deriving the conclusion that therefore DNA was complex and designed, you commit a basic error. You're affirming the consequent; this is a logical fallacy.
So not only can you not conclude what you have based on the argument you have used, doing so is actually wrong in itself.And yes, the entire first half of the post was bitter satire. For fuck's sake, I managed to seriously justify the proposition of a designer using evidence, despite it being a parody. The best any IDiot has done, even with years of research, is "I can't believe evolution did that, must'a bin' magick."
Does it not strike you -- and here I add the general challenge: or any ID supporter at all -- as odd that a joke version of your own hypothesis has better support than the real thing?

Fortunately my coffee cup was still in front of my face when I saw this.And so early in the morning! I'm going to giggle at this all day.Ringo, you are an absolute delight. Thank you!

Thanks for that link because it is a great example of what problems you face.There is no evidence at that site, in fact it is absolutely nothing but more examples of how Creationists simply copy from each other, never try to verify their claims and how the Christian Cult of Ignorance simply accept crap like that site and Ron Wyatt's Archeological Research without question.I did not go off topic, I replied to yet another false assertion that you made; and it is on topic because it once again demonstrated that you have no idea what evidence even is and so are totally clueless about how to even go about supporting design or some designer.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You just love being wrong don't you?Look at the maps in your link. They are yet another great example of the ignorance of so many Biblical Literalists.Note where it says:

quote:

---

The Admirality map of the Red Sea showing depth measurements.
Blue dotted line follows lowest depths as they seem to be indicated today.

---

First, anyone that has even basic geography knowledge of the area can see that the lower map is NOT of the Red Sea but of the Gulf of Aqaba.Second, there is NO sandbar shown, and the dotted line someone just added. Note that they also omitted the legend that shows how depths are shown. The reality is that the depth of the Gulf of Aqaba is between 400 and 1800 METERS.Learn what evidence really is. Stop just accepting the nonsense these folk are selling you.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And yet you couldn't provide Mod with the clear and visible (and don't forget, demonstratable) purpose for life. How can you not see the obvious circular reasoning in what you wrote? GeezYou can dispute the purpose of a designed item, but you can't dispute the order that the designed item was placed in - therefore concluding design is valid?No shit?!You already state it was a designed item - OF COURSE the conclusion is design!

So then you agree that purpose or specificity can be created by random processes?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

​

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

​

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

​

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

Your rambling my friend, I never said law and order were insufficient to conclude design, I said they were insufficient to prove design.Concluding as you have verbally that they are not on equal footing in verbage and demonstrating that logically is ofcourse, is another. It seems almost arrogance that you could attempt such a featHere is why. Order and purpose are evidential from a physical standpoint. Even if purpose is a conclusion it is demonstratble in the eye. Its functions and results end in a clear and visible purposeThat is positive evidence of purpose, thus design.Now watch pay close attention. While I can test this theory in a positive way, the negative of it, that is not purpose can ONLY be theorized. How will you test a claim where the results are to clear (no pun intended) to miss.Even if one theorizes evo, the purpose of the eye remains in a physical testable way simply by the results of the physical evidenceAll you can do is suggest that it may not be purpose or design, you have no physical way to demonstrate otherwise. How could you possibly demonstrate the clear purpose of the eye is not what it is designed to do, your position seems impossible beyond belief. Have at itThats like saying I know someone is in front of me and Im talking to them and all the evidence points to it, but Idont really believe they are there.You only have ideologies and theories concerning order, purpose and design where I have all of those and physical data as wellPlease demonstrate me wrong concerning thes mattersDawn Bertot

You simplistic comedian. Just like the eye, I provided him with a clear purpose for life, which is testable against reality. objection to reality thus purpose is not an answer tothat evidence, its simply an objection with no testable evidence.The purpose of life are its results, having followed a clear and present order. This is testable because it happens and is visible. The negative that it is not order and PURPOSE, now watch, is not testable, where the result is toeasy to miss.How would you determine that the eye, IS NOT doing what it is actually doing, that seems silly even to approach as an philosopjical idea, much less a practicle oneHow would you demonstrate the result of the eye that provides sight, is not its PURPOSE. The negative claim cannot be tested where the evidence is obvious. The eye sees,that is its order, purpose and designThe negative claim resides in complain, philosophy and ideology, and cannot refute obvious physical observationGeez indeedDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.