9 sublime
I think we both agree you and me came from some source. There are currently only 2 explanations for biological existence:
A. We are a mistake.
B. We are the result of intelligent design.
I think that we can also agree that DNA is a code and a damned complex one at that.
Science can not offer empirical data to definitively prove or disprove either position. So what we are left with is "circumstantial" evidence. We can't witness evolution or creation but we can look at what remains from the past. We can analyze what's left and put that together with other things that we can observe, quantify and measure and arrive at a reasonable conclusion.
Whether or not DNA can evolve naturally is at the central core of whether or not evolution is a realistic explanation of biological origins. If it is impossible for DNA to evolve, then evolution as espoused by the Darwin Kool Aid drinkers is also impossible.
My premise is that if a highly complex code like DNA could evolve then there should be hundreds or thousands of other codes/languages that naturally evolved and finding them should be a piece of cake. Because there are none, the likelihood that as highly complex a code as DNA could evolve naturalistically is highly unlikely and certainly not demonstrated in nature.
You may not realize how complez DNA really is. Human DNA has 3 billion base pairs on every DNA starnd in the human body. That is 6 BILLION chemical compounds, each of which is located where it is supposed to be and arranged in the proper order. There are 4 different chemical compounds that may be present at each location and 6 billion locations. The mathematical probability of that happening by chance is 4 raised to the 6 billionth power. This number is so ridiculously small as to merit NO serious consideration by any rational and unbiased thinker.
To summarize, there are at least 2 reasons to conclude DNA did not evolve naturalistically:
1. The mathematical probabilities are zilch.
2. There are no other examples of naturally evolving codes/languages.
If there are only 2 explanation of how we got here and A is clearly not feasible, the only alternative is B.
This is reasonable proof of the existence of a creator. This line of reasoning is thoroughly scientific and meets the demands of any courtroom.
