Atheists: What makes you think DNA exists?

Question

If you *have* actually seen DNA in one of those cool microscopes, cool beans for you. But most of us haven't. So for us people who have never **personally** observed DNA, what makes you think it exists?

I ask this question to atheists because I want to see If I can get atheists to say something they bash religious people for saying.

Blackbird:

Have YOU ever SEEN it?

Paul S:

Are you kidding me? The number one reason atheists dont believe in God is because THEY have never OBSERVED GOD.

Have YOU ever OBSERVED DNA?

Answer 1

If you think that the reason that Atheists don't believe in God is simply that we can't see God, you're sorely mistaken.

This is really just another version of the "wind" and "love" arguments. Give it up - if you can't produce any evidence for the existence of gods, why not just admit that your belief is based in faith? That'd be the honest thing to do, and we atheists would be a LOT more respectful of believers if they were more honest.
===============
"Are you kidding me? The number one reason atheists dont believe in God is because THEY have never OBSERVED GOD."

No, that's not even remotely true. Observing God would of course help, but the number one reason atheists don't believe in gods is that there's no evidence that any gods exist. You can't say that about DNA (or the wind, or love).

Don't you think you'd do a lot better if you were honest about this? If you admit that there's no evidence for any gods, and that you just believe based on faith, you get to be honest AND keep your belief in god.

True, you wouldn't have any basis to keep attacking atheists, but if that's your real goal here, you don't belong here in the first place (and you're not very good at it, for that matter).

Answer 2

Never seen any. Never saw the big bang either. Just read some of the theories for both subjects and adding together those and my knowledge of science, limited though it is, I decided that the explanations for both sound very plausible to me. Not factual, plausible. On the other hand, nothing about religion clicks with anything that I know of science to suggest that there is the least bit of plausibility for the "creation theory", Christian's use of the word not mine. Not saying it's impossible that there is a god, but that possibility is so minute as to be less than microscopic. Some evidence, any evidence, that the same science community that publishes articles and discussions about DNA and the big bang, could observe using scientific methodolgy that points to the existence of god would really get my attention. Just like DNA has. Until then, I've only your word to take or the bible or the quoran or whatever about creationism. But like I said and always have said, bring forth some evidence and I'll look at it with an open mind. Hell, if I ever get real physical evidence in my hands proving the existence of god to science, I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams.

And I've never bashed anybody for saying anything by the way. Just answer questions when asked.

Answer 3

I don't understand why you lot use really such sh!tty analogies

Seriously? There must be a god because I personally haven't looked through a microscope and seen a DNA strand? that's the absolute best you have?

I mean pick something that everyone believes in but no one in the planet has ever seen or can ever prove exists.

If I had a burning urge to see a DNA strand I could. It's that simple

edit: I clicked labgrrl's link and now I have seen DNA

Ooh dear

No pictures of your god online I'm afraid

Answer 4

I personally have seen DNA in a lab in Berkeley, California. There are many, many other people who have seen it. More importantly, seeing DNA is a reproducible event. Meaning that someone who has seen it before can say, "I have seen DNA. This is how I saw it. If you do the same thing, then you also will see it." You yourself can verify this by contacting a University and asking if you can see DNA. People are usually helpful with this sort of request, believe it or not! :)

No one can say the same thing about God. No one can say, "I have seen God. This is how I saw Him. If you do the same thing, then you will also see Him."

If Believers could do that, then there wouldn't be an argument. God would be fact, and religion wouldn't be based on faith.

Answer 5

You seem little confused. If you don't accept DNA (the short form of Deoxyribonucleic acid). exists you might as well say say mercury. silver or acid doesn't exist .

DNA is studied in an empirical way; that is by observing its affects and effects in different tests with other 'things'. The fact that I have never seen it means very little I 'trust' the scientists up to the point that they say they have seen and and can then demonstrate certain effects or changes as a result of their experiments.

They lead me to believe they might be correct. Just as astronomers who were derided by religious people years ago for saying the earth moved round the sun can be shown to be correct nowadays by simple observations and a bit of appropriate reading

Proof of the existence of a divine Saviour cannot be taken simply on the trusted word of another because few experiences are similar. A few people said they say this event two thousand years ago and it changed their lives. Any argument which says that someone's personal experience is a 'truth' is dodgy unless you yourself have had this proof. If I tell you that I saw a messiah and she is a woman and she is the daughter of God do you believe me?

Hope this helps

Answer 6

The statement that you need to see it to believe it has dropped into ancient history. Most of us accept evidence of the "invisible" in the form of published and reviewed works. Not to mention photos, models and other forms of communication.

If you want to understand why that is not the same as the Christian's "I take it by faith" explanation you will need to understand the scientific process and how results are determined and communicated. Yes, on the surface one could take the two as very similar but simplistically put one has a great deal of evidence and can be repeated whereas the other just uses "faith" as the proof, evidence and reason.

So for your question: Yes I have seen DNA and quarks. I have seen evidence that they "operate" and effect the world as described, i.e. if a proton is split the various quarks make the right path, and traces of DNA can be identified, compared as analyzed. On the Christian side, I have read the bible and about the only evidence for it or it's claims is that recored locations seem to exist in the most part. I have not seen any compelling evidence to suggest that God operates the way that he is described, nor is he consistently described by the bible....

Edit:
It's not necessarily "Observed God", but it is definitely no evidence found of god or of his book as being real. Understand the difference.

Answer 7

Mmm, not quite the right analogy.


For each religion, there is usually one book and that book is true because it says it is. The people involved in writing it are currently dead and any observations they have made (say a burning bush or an ark) cannot be repeated or verified.

DNA has been observed by humans beings, all over the world (including myself) and this observation isn't a one time thing, it can be repeated and shared and written about in many books. Thats the difference. DNA isn't accepted by science on faith, its accepted based on proof.

Answer 8

so you are saying that random sequences can't make complex words without a purpose or somebody directing it. sorry but that is not how natural selection works. so let's make the word "stupid" using what is really the mechanism of natural selection. no, it's not just picking a random letter out of the alphabet and placing straight on the paper. it's like: you pick a word. is it an s? if it isn't put it back to where you got it. if it is, put in on the paper, since here the s is the favourable letter. then keep picking another letter. disregard all letters except t. then u, p, i and then d. there, you'll have the word "stupid". it's not random, it's selection. now you are probably going to protest that natural selection is selection done by a deity. believe what you like but natural selection is actually selection by nature on the basis: survival of the fittest. the traits of an organism that it either has or has mutated that make the organism fit is passed on. the ones that are not are not passed down because it is disadvantaged.

Answer 9

The KEY difference that you are missing here is the difference between not seeing something and "something that cannot be seen". Not seeing something simply means you have not seen it. If you look closely (like using a microscope) you WILL SEE DNA. While, god CANNOT be seen no matter what you do. God is by definition NOT ABLE TO BE SEEN. Perhaps now you understand the difference?

Answer 10

Scientific evidence.

If DNA did not exist, there's plenty of money and fame to be gained to disprove it. The methods by which DNA's existence has been verified are transparent and fully reproducible via the scientific method. If DNA's existence was in doubt there would be very loud voices in the scientific community expressing evidence for their doubts, and all the evidence would be vetted and a new scientific consensus would be formed. Hey, maybe DNA doesn't exist, but the current evidence is air-tight.

One day conventional thought on DNA may be controverted, and I will examine the evidence and adjust my analysis of the facts accordingly. That is something you won't here believers admit to - according to them NOTHING will reshape their belief in Jesus.

Answer 11

No, I haven't seen it and Yes, I do believe it exists. I believe in the existence of DNA because of the process of science. Scientific proof is based on experiments that can be replicated by others. Scientists are constantly challenging each other by attempting to replicate one anothers experiments to verify results. Anyone who has falsified data, or conducted a poor experiment will be ferreted out by her/his peers. It happens all the time. This isn't some huge conspiracy...it's scientific fact.