donaldkilroy

No matter what I come back with in response I simply cannot break through the wall of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance of my opponent who gave me this syllogism:

I've shown how the Telelogical Argument is faulty and has already been disproven, among other things, and shown how DNA is not "designed" and doesn't even fall within the definition of "design." Yet they keep coming back with nonsensical responses like, "I don't need to contrast something with something else in order to know what it is or that it was designed." In other words, it's a self-evident argument ad nauseum.

I thought I'd post the above syllogism and see who (those who do not conform to the lunacy of Creationism) would respond in disproving it.

Any takers?

The_Unknown_Banana

Premise one is of course the questionable premise.
If DNA was a designed, then premise two might hold some truth.

How can you prove DNA is designed? Define "Design" and "Designed" - ie. if I drop a bucket of paint on a sheet of paper, and it makes something that looks like a picture, is that a "design"? (It certainly isn't "designed") I don't think you can prove something was designed... you can only really assume. (of course with the classic example - the watch - there is good reason to assume it is designed)

There's probably someone with better material than me, but those are just some thoughts of mine.

[Added] You sound like you are probably already more knowledgable than me in the matter anyway

Coragyps

DNA is just another polymer, not a design. The syllogism collapses.

Doubting Didymus

Bleegh. Pathetic little legalistic arguments like that are the last resort of people who can't cope with things like facts and evidence.

"You think a hundred lines of evidence independantly converging on the fact of common descent can stop me? I can write shit in the modus ponens! take THAT!"

Mecha_Dude

Even if we agree, for the sake of the argument, that DNA is designed, that doesn't mean that the designer is a conscious being.

Worldtraveller

Let's take this line by line:
Actually, I think we can stop right here.
Some Examples:
Sand dunes make very regular patterns (designs) Therefore wind is a designer?
Many herding/schooling animals (fish in particular) tend to group in certain patterns. I've seen some quite fascinating schools of small fish in the shallows off Okinawa that from a distance resemble nothing so much as a small ball of rolling seaweed (imagine an aquatic tumbleweed ).
Many geologic formations form as a result of the crystalline stucture of the rocks into very specific shapes. Maybe one of our geologists can give us some good examples.

I think this is at least enough to show that the premise of this argument is flawed.

Well, I suppose, I'll give 'em this one.

Ah well, I guess if you consider selective pressures and the ability to reproduce as 'designers' then by all means, this is a logical conclusion.

Hope this helps.

Lane

Duvenoy

And if he is, I've got a bone to pick with the inept bastard about my spine; and no, I will not apologize for the pun.

doov

Heathen Dawn

No-one's denying design. Not even Richard Dawkins. It's just that it isn't intelligent design.