Re: Childbirth Proves Genesis

On Apr 23, 12:15 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chris wrote:

[big snip]

Now you claim DNA itself is proof of common design. Great- tell us
why.

Just pointing out it's ubiquitous is _not_ evidence, you know. That
rationale is consistent with too many other interpretations, the most
important one being common descent. Show us dependable evidence for
design that's not consistent with other explanations.

Remember that you have to account for identical DNA producing
identical results used for similar purposes; similar DNA producing
similar results used for different purposes; different DNA producing
similar results used for similar purposes; and different DNA being
used to produce different results used for different purposes.
According to you, it's ALL evidence of design. Your model needs to
include it all, and at least make a start at explaining it all.

Have at it.

Chris

The DNA is similar to a computer program. Simple changes to the code and you
can get what qualifies for an entirely new program.

Well, now that's a start, even if it is another faulty analogy.

Computer programs are, obviously, written by a programmer. I don't see
any evidence that anyone wrote the DNA. In fact, it has all the
appearance of having been assembled over a huge span of time in a
slipshod, haphazard fashion. It's filled with junk, errors, and
leftovers from earlier versions. Also, what kind of programmer writes
programs will millions of instructions and doesn't include a single
damned comment?

On top of that, we're not talking about simple changes here. Some
changes are pretty significant. And why is the designer using the same
things for so many different jobs? It's obvious that the designer can
make up different things to do different jobs. Asserting the genetic
code is similar to a computer program (which it is, much the same way
a Mud Dauber nest is similar to the Raffles Hotel) doesn't provide any
real information. You once again don't tell us your methods and you
don't present any data.

In science your conclusions are exactly as strong as the data on which
they're based. I am afraid that as far as this 'program' goes, you're
still talking vaporware.

Chris

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... Evidence is made irrelevant. ... You have to explain why DNA is evidence of design. ... unspecified but non-reproductive feature of living organisms are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: I admit Im over my head on this one.
    ... Design on Infidels, the world's largest atheist discussion board. ... present his 'evidence' and proof. ... DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; ... The objection that information is not real (it is, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... Evidence is made irrelevant. ... You have to explain why DNA is evidence of design. ... you pointed out somewhere is evolution, not abiogenesis. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... I offered DNA as a possible instance of design ... What you really did was offer DNA as *evidence* that life ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Cosmological Argument
    ... I offered DNA as a possible instance of design both because of its ... posters have pointed out to you, there's nothing that DNA does that RNA ... evidence that contradicts the explanation, ... just another molecule and nature makes molecules all the time. ...
    (talk.origins)