As you have noted, the “designer” argument is just one of several problems for theists. Another is that the “design” always seems to be “too complex!”. As a guy who has designed a few things in my time, I always wonder what criteria could be used to determine the difference between “nature” and “divine intervention”. The closest I’ve seen to something specific is Michael Behe’s “Irreducibly Complex” argument. But it falls short because it’s too vague.
1 Like
Well obviously designers come from a designer-designer. It’s designers all the way down!
5 Likes
That even follows by mathematical induction! 
2 Likes
It hasn’t really evolved. It assembles naturally. The inherent “rules” for its assemblies are imbedded in its chemistry. It’s only after it self assembles that the process of evolution becomes possible. Hence it is not emergent complexity.
You’re categorically mistaken. You didn’t even know that DNA has properties of automatic self assembly.
Complexity arises from the DNA molecule. The DNA molecule does not emerge out of chaos or anything random. When the proper pieces are anywhere near each other, they simply combine - as though they were designed for that very purpose. And this is more true of rNA than DNA. But this self assembly principle is also the case with amino acids and transport codons - which - if the self assembly of amino acid/transcription codons wasn’t an inevitability of nature, then there would be absolutely no possibility that DNA could make proteins. Life would be impossible if it for the entirely predetermined existence of these self assembling molecules. The complexity arises after the fact. The “evolution” arises on the substrate of a very well ordered set of conditions.
Every revelation is different. I’d wager that the people who have them are confused as to whether or not they should even be telling people about these experiences, much less creating edicts about how, why, when and where a person is destined for Hell. I could tell you the conditions under which I was destined for Hell in my revelation. I’m not going to. In fact, I probably already have on this site. It’s probably a matter of the public domain. But it applied only to me. It may still apply to me, in which case I’m fucked, because I’ve breeched the conditions many many times over since. But I don’t think that’s the case. God has a sense of humour. That much was clear from my experience. He can also be infinitely serious when he places a bet or any kind - even in jest. But who cares? I don’t go about preaching my conditions to other people and I don’t expect anyone else should either. And even if they claim that they were instructed to by the deity - that is a matter of emergent complexity. The deity presents different conditions to different peoples at different times. As we know conditions are liable to change.
Oh. I do believe you will be telling me what the issue is promptly … intriguing … 
Ah. I had a feeling you would clear that up … 
So, why do you keep repeating yourself … ?tahook!
You become more enigmatic with every sentence …
“It rubs the lotion on its skin, or it gets the hose again.” - Jesus Christ, man. You’re weird. Are you a sadist or a masochist?
No! You’re being all “cryptic”. I am taking to you at this point merely for the amusement.
Thanks for the input. I’ll refer you to what I refers Sheldon to. RNA in particular is self assembling. If the conditions for the codons to pair didn’t exist ahead of time we would have nothing resembling DNA or RNA.
Moreover, transcription could not occur without the chemical possibility of codons being able to attach to amino acids.
where do you suppose that possibility arose from?
-
Proteins are needed to build the enzymes that charge tRNAs.
-
Charged tRNAs are needed to build proteins.
In the case of an infinite being, there need not be any concern over where or how or why or when or what. Where is a question of a being limited by space. How is a question of a being limited by cause and effect. Why is a question of a being limited by reason. When is a question of a being limited by time. What is a question of a being limited by matter.
It’s sentience all the way up 
It absolutely has according to the theory of evolution, so I suggest you take your claim to scientific site and let us know how you get on.
Evidence that it self assembled please, also how does this evidence a creator deity?
You seem to have made up a straw man that bears no resemblances to what you’ve quoted?
Science does not currently know how DNA first emerged, it’s existence does not objectively evidence a deity designer / creator. It does evolve, and no one has claimed evolution is entirely random or chaotic.
Which again does not evidence design, complexity and order do not on their own represent objective evidnece of a deity designer / creator.. why would it?
Oh ratty, you’re priceless.
When they are based on the bias of entirely subjective beliefs, unsupported by any objective evidence, then yes obviously, I’d expect nothing else. Whereas methods like science produce ideas that are reliably true and thus scientific facts don’t vary among cultures and people, or even time as long as no new objective evidences justifies it. In stark contrast to subjective religious beliefs of course.
Incorrect. The conditions do not need to be present in advance, they can just come to be.
You may need to delve deeper into biological chemistry. Not just chemistry.
Franklin
You’re aware that Darwin had no idea that DNA was the source of genetic inheritance when he postulated his theory? Evolution pertains to organisms. DNA is the underlying source of genetic inheritance. It records changes to phenotypes which persist in given environments according to the laws of evolution. It does not experience “evolution”. There is no DNA which is more “fit” to survive in an environment than the others. DNA all consists of the same underlying structures. But if you’d like to tell me how one piece of DNA specifically is more fit for an environment than another, go right ahead.
ChatGPT:
DNA self-assembles because of a few remarkable chemical and physical properties built into the molecule itself.
1. Complementary Base Pairing
The most important property is that the bases have specific partners:
-
Adenine (A) pairs with Thymine (T)
-
Cytosine (C) pairs with Guanine (G)
These pairs form hydrogen bonds:
-
A–T forms 2 hydrogen bonds
-
C–G forms 3 hydrogen bonds
Because of this, if two DNA strands encounter one another, complementary sequences naturally “find” each other and zip together.
We do know with certainty that the laws of physics which govern microbiology allow for the base pairing properties of DNA. Those laws are not emergent features of an evolving system. They are imbedded chemical properties which allow for life to exist.
The chemical properties which allow for base pairing to exist in the first place do not “evolve”. Moreover, when geneticists discovered that DNA held the key to generic inheritance they found that the mechanism of evolution was the entirely random and chaotic process of base pair substitutions - which leads to genetic mutations and which leads to novel protein structures. So the process by which the genetic basis of evolution is capable of undergoing change happens in an entirely random and chaotic fashion. But it is not the DNA which evolves. The DNA design may change. It doesn’t evolve the way that organisms evolve.
Order suggests intention. Intention suggests agency. Agency suggests intelligence. Intelligence suggests design. I am not saying that the well ordered properties of the universe are objective evidence of a creator. I am saying they are suggestive of a creator. You are free to deny all such obvious signs. That is your choice. Of course Atheists are well accustomed to denying their Creator. That is precisely what you all share in common - the hubris to assume that you are somehow greater than God, don’t need Him, and aren’t superseded by Him.
Ha! Well I’m happy someone is getting a kick out of this …
I think you’d agree, for example that the principles of a theory like evolution won’t change over time - but the subject matter of the theory always will. Religious revelation is similar. The principle of the Revelation remains the same - but the subject matter changes over time.
What does that mean? They just “come to be”?
As I said, best take this claim to a science forum that specialises in evolution, let us know the result, I can only repeat that my understanding is DNA evolves. Unless you worded the claim badly, and were talking about its origins of course? In which case science doesn’t fully understand how it originated, but there is no evidence it was designed or created, and no objective evidence for any deity either, so that two unevidenced assumptions if you’re positing DNA was designed and created by a deity.
I still see no evidence for design or a deity creator? Do I need again to point out that atheism rises sharply among scientists, and exponentially among elite scientists, claiming that anything in sciences evidence a deity, is at odds with the fact that the majority of elite scientists seem unaware of that?
No it doesn’t, objective evidence is what best evidence design. You are using a circular argument based on the unevidenced question begging in the assumption that complexity infers design, as I already pointed out.
The https://talkorigins.org/ site thoroughly debunks these sorts of creationists arguments.
A rather pointless straw man, since I made no such claim, and nor could I if I am an atheist.
This has no relevance at all to there being no evidence of design in any scientific field or idea.
Straw man, atheism is not a claim about a deity. It is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, we surely are past such a canard from someone who has posted here as long as you have ratty, I though better of you tbh.
Well if you can’t see the subjective bias in your claim, what else is there to do, but laugh at the irony.
No I would not, since I can’t predict the future and nor can science. There are no absolutes in science, only in religions, and these are indicative of a closed minded rationale, one of sciences greatest strengths is its inbuilt willingness to admit an error if the evidence demands it.
A false equivalence, since scientific ideas are accepted and changed if and only if sufficient objectively verifiable evidence demands it, in stark contrast to entirely unevidenced and subjective beliefs like the religious belief for an extant deity.
Beyond your unevidenced assumption that complexity infers design, and your assumption design infers a creator deity, you have offered no objective evidence that any deity exists, despite pages of posts.
Ample evidence in both those claims, that unevidenced subjective experience alone is not reliable.
1 Like
Counter example: Giant’s Causeway in Ireland. Lava from a volcanic eruption contracted as it cooled, leaving behind a regular pattern. This is plainly a result of natural physical processes, and does not in any way suggest intention, agency, intelligence, or design.
There are several other examples to be found around the world.
There are many other examples of “order” that have natural explanations, like spiral patterns in plants or snail shells. These are just a natural result of growth along with some sort of rotation, and in no way suggest intention, agency, intelligence, or design. They’re just a result of a naturally occuring form of efficiently managing space and energy.
So what kind of order do you think are a result of intention, agency, intelligence, and design?
3 Likes
Oh well, if you want solid evidence of a designer’s identity from nature, look no further than this Google Earth image of the unclimbed heights of Mount Kailiash in the Himalayas.
BEHOLD THE FACE OF SHIVA!
For thousands of years this holy mountain has been venerated as the home of the god Shiva. Thousands make the pilgrimage every year to walk around the base of the mountain many times to work off their karmic burden. But nobody climbs it and nobody has ever climbed it. Because the mountain is sacred.
So then, how did millions of Hindu’s centuries ago know that the face of their god was hidden in a narrow ravine near the summit? To see the face requires climbing to a vantage point above it. But the mountain is unclimbed.
Only with the advent of air travel and satellites was the true identity of the intelligent designer of the universe known.
If that’s not convincing evidence for intelligent design, then what is?
1 Like
This type of claim to have seen the visage of Jesus in a taco or a sliced tomato always makes me laugh, you have to wonder what they’re comparing the image to?
Who knows?
But the advantage Hindus have over all the other claimants is that they could not have possibly known Shiva’s face was concealed inside a crevasse that nobody at the base of the mountain could see.
No other belief system has yet revealed such a clear and unequivocal sign of the identity of the intelligently designing creator.
Sure, they point to DNA or the cosmos or to other stuff, but it takes a leap of faith to connect these things to their particular god.
Whereas, high on Mount Kailiash, the creator declares his identity for all to see!
Admit it, you were thinking about butthole Jesus. Yes, I have angered more than one christian with this picture 
3 Likes
I’ll admit that’s the first thing to which my mind jumped!
2 Likes
Yeah, I had it in mind as well, if I am being honest. 
1 Like
The irony is convincing…you could cut it with a knife.