Junk DNA Not So Junky

"The first sequencing of the human genome about a decade ago showed that 2% of DNA coded for proteins and the rest seemed to represent "junk DNA" of unknown function. Studies by the worldwide Encode (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) consortium now reveal that at least 80% of the genome contains areas that interact with regulatory proteins, switch processes on and off, can be transcribed into gene-regulating RNAs, or perform other functions. These papers represent a tectonic shift in our understanding of the intricate circuitry that makes the human genome work,"

Hmm, imagine that, there was a "teutonic shift in our understanding of the intricate circuitry that makes the human genome work." The scientific community is barely scratching the scratch when gaining an understanding of how magnificent our Universe and the human body is.

It makes me wonder why people still desperately cling to the thought that there was this catastrophic event hundreds of millions of years ago, total chaos, disparate energy, etc. and somehow we wind up with this magnificent Universe made up of stars, planets and this thing called life which is seem in plants, animals and mankind.

It didn't just happen by some astronomically impossible chance of just the right combinations of matter coming together. There was a Designer!

"....It didn't just happen by some astronomically impossible chance of just the right combinations of matter coming together. There was a Designer!...."

.

The problem with trying to use that to explain away, what to many seems like an implausible confluence of events and conditions...

...is that is doesn't.

.

However unlikely it may seem for conscious life to have been generated without some outside conscious life (gods, aliens, mud monsters, whatever you like to fantasize about) actively controlling the process, that unlikeliness is not a valid argument for the existence of gods, aliens or mud monsters.

.

Specifically, this is the case because hypothesizing some outside consciousness actively controlling the process does not resolve the issue of how something so complex came to be. After all, if a mud monster is going to design the universe or make life, then the mud monster itself must be pretty complex....and where did it come from.

.

Some people will say that the origins of a mud monster are beyond the capability of mere humans to understand. But you don't need a mud monster for that argument... just say that the origins of life and the universe are beyond the ability of some humans to understand.

My statement that "....It didn't just happen by some astronomically impossible chance of just the right combinations of matter coming together. There was a Designer!" is a mathematics problem, aside from the ideology issue. There is no way odds-wise that the Universe as we know it and are still discovering about came about by chance.

I understand that there are some people who will deny the existence of a Designer until their dying day but it doesn't negate His existence. Some things in life we accept by faith not just because we can understand or see something. We do it everyday in life. We use things without having the slightest knowledge about how they work but we still trust and use them.

....and something capable of designing the universe, somehow is capable of coming about by chance?

.

Or do you resolve that with 'the creator must have had a creator...who must have had a creator...who must have had a creator...'?

.

You are certainly right, it is a math problem....and just because some people don't fully comprehend the implication of the problem, does not validate magical solutions.