DNA proves the existence of God

[FreethinkingSceptic]

https://www.lingq.com/en/learn-english-online/courses/170225/dna-the-book-of-you-joe-hanson-442136/

DNA is the equivalent of a book which is over 600,000 pages long. Obviously, such a thing would have to have a creator. Pretty simple.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are coral reefs thousands of miles long. Did they need a "creator"?

[Mr.Obvious]

I'm unconvinced.
This reads like: "I can't possibly understand this, therefor god." To me.

It would be like saying: I have no idea how something as massive and strong as a star could be formed through natural processes. So it is obvious god handmade the stars.

[aitm]

Oh brother. You may have mis lead us with you tag. Perhaps, non-thinking skeptic would be truth in advertising.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Religultards get like that. If you've never once questioned your faith then you've never thought about it. Not thinking is encouraged by the church brass, thinking is a bad thing.

[Unbeliever]

It wasn't God that did it, it was aliens! 👽

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've seen that movie too.

[Blackleaf]

It's the equivalent to a book being written over a period of 3.5 billion years, with an editor (natural selection) that removes any bits that are useless or unhelpful.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's the equivalent to a book being written over a period of 3.5 billion years, with an editor (natural selection) that removes any bits that are useless or unhelpful.

Actually there's a lot of junk in human DNA, at least.

[Mr.Obvious]

In that case, the overabundance of information too could be interpreted as 'not proof' for a particularly intelligent  creator-god. I mean, why put all that unessecary junk in there?

[Unbeliever]

There's also a lot of random chaos in DNA that helps it work properly.

[Blackleaf]

Actually there's a lot of junk in human DNA, at least.

If it doesn't affect our chances of survival in a significant way, the editor doesn't catch it. If a population lives underground for a significant number of generations, though, the editor might take the functionality of your eyeballs away, because that's just wasted energy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In that case, the overabundance of information too could be interpreted as 'not proof' for a particularly intelligent  creator-god. I mean, why put all that unessecary junk in there?

Show that the two are one-to-one equivalent.

I'll wait. ♫Jeopardy theme♫

[Mr.Obvious]

I dunno?

Not hard 'disproof'.
But you know; perfect god would make it perfectly.
Reality shows unnecessary 'complexity'.
Therefor supposed creator probably isn't all-knowing, were he to exist.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I dunno?

Not hard 'disproof'.
But you know; perfect god would make it perfectly.
Reality shows unnecessary 'complexity'.
Therefor supposed creator probably isn't all-knowing, were he to exist.

Ah, got it. "DNA shows the work of an incompetent god or gods."