The design argument

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
'Cause it can't. If, for example, we would find no evidence that DNA can reproduce, that would be bad for the theory of evolution, and it would suggest that something else might be at play. No "theoretical patch" is available since reproduction is an essential aspect of evolution.

DNA can reproduce could be by design, why should it be just looked at
as evidence for evolution? There are more examples designed code working
out issues than there are of randomly coming together to build something.

Originally posted by KellyJay
All the things that work together to support life from the placement of
stars and planets down to the sub-atomic levels is evidence, you reject
that! I've no issue with you doing that, but to deny that shows us something
in my opinion just smacks as you will reject everything and anything that
can point to that as possibly being true.

The evidence in ...[text shortened]... it. It would screw up your
world view and everything in it, which is much to important to you.

By this logic, no matter how the universe looks, the way it looks could be presented as evidence that it was designed to look that way. The question is, is there OTHER evidence?

Originally posted by KellyJay
DNA can reproduce could be by design, why should it be just looked at
as evidence for evolution? There are more examples designed code working
out issues than there are of randomly coming together to build something.

Isn't that great, after all this time discussing evolution, you come to realize that it doesn't explain how DNA (or RNA, or any other reproducing agent) came into being. Maybe if you had studied basic evolution when first hearing about it, you would have made the same realization decades ago.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Isn't that great, after all this time discussing evolution, you come to realize that it doesn't explain how DNA (or RNA, or any other reproducing agent) came into being. Maybe if you had studied basic evolution when first hearing about it, you would have made the same realization decades ago.

By design seems more likely to me than having them write themselves.

Originally posted by JS357
By this logic, no matter how the universe looks, the way it looks could be presented as evidence that it was designed to look that way. The question is, is there OTHER evidence?

You going to look outside of the universe? The only place we can look is
all around us, the evidence is not going to change, it is what it is. Are we
looking at it correctly or not? It does not matter what side of the debate
you are on, you could be wrong. Only those that are so arrogant that don't
think they are in error or ever could be about this subject, will never admit
that things may not be the way they think they are.

It is the difference in saying you believe and these are the facts.

Originally posted by KellyJay
By design seems more likely to me that having them write themselves.

That's totally grand. But I hope you realize now that evolution does not depend on DNA being "designed" or not? If you have learned something here, I think we can establish that we have achieved the greatest knowledge transfer in the history of the creationism vs. evolution debate.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
That's totally grand. But I hope you realize now that evolution does not depend on DNA being "designed" or not? If you have learned something here, I think we can establish that we have achieved the greatest knowledge transfer in the history of the creationism vs. evolution debate.

Please if DNA were designed you would have to throw out the theory!
There wouldn't be any random changes over time!

Originally posted by KellyJay
Please if DNA were designed you would have to throw out the theory!
There wouldn't be any random changes over time!

What a pity. I thought we were getting somewhere. Maybe it is time to consider reading about evolution to understand what it is? And then, after you have done so, you can even form an informed opinion about it!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What a pity. I thought we were getting somewhere. Maybe it is time to consider reading about evolution to understand what it is? And then, after you have done so, you can even form an informed opinion about it!

I've looked at this for years, having a three line conversation with you is
hardly worth worrying about or getting upset over. If DNA was designed than
all of the driving random forces that were supposed to be in play would no
longer be random! Nothing about life would be random it would all be as
it was designed to be. Which also shouts that we owe our lives to the one
who designed it! Hardly something that you are going to see in a medical
journal.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've looked at this for years, having a three line conversation with you is
hardly worth worrying about or getting upset over. If DNA was designed than
all of the driving random forces that were supposed to be in play would no
longer be random! Nothing about life would be random it would all be as
it was designed to be. Which also shouts that we owe our ...[text shortened]... s to the one
who designed it! Hardly something that you are going to see in a medical
journal.

I guess you've been looking in the wrong places, then. Evolution neither explains nor requires an explanation of the origin of life. If beardy man created DNA with his magic wand evolution would work the same way. Indeed, you can find (non-biological) evolution in various environments created by man.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I guess you've been looking in the wrong places, then. Evolution neither explains nor requires an explanation of the origin of life. If beardy man created DNA with his magic wand evolution would work the same way. Indeed, you can find (non-biological) evolution in various environments created by man.

Design speaks to the origin of life, as it would also speak to the process
itself. You really should take more time and think these things through.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Design speaks to the origin of life, as it would also speak to the process itself.

What does that even mean?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What does that even mean?

"Design speaks to the origin of life, as it would also speak to the process itself."

DNA if it was designed to do what it does, than its origin has been answered
since the designer is the source. If DNA is used to promote life than all the
processes of life are owed to the designer, they would not be part of some
random changes in DNA without intent.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Interesting. So you dispute the omnipotence of God?

I am simply trying to point out that the known facts fit the creation account given in Genesis better than any evolution theory. The evolution theory has no reasonable explanation as to how the functional program information got into DNA in the beginning. The Creation theory does.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Design speaks to the origin of life, as it would also speak to the process itself."

DNA if it was designed to do what it does, than its origin has been answered
since the designer is the source. If DNA is used to promote life than all the
processes of life are owed to the designer, they would not be part of some
random changes in DNA without intent.

Evolution does not describe or explain the origin of DNA (or whatever happens to be the replicating agent). Hence, it is irrelevant to the theory.