(March 8, 2019 at 10:02 am)IWNKYAAIMI Wrote:

(March 8, 2019 at 9:44 am)CDF47 Wrote: She made some good points.

I wouldn't go that far

I would.

Begs the question of what you think a good point looks like.  Nevermind that, though.....of all the different "points" you've tried to raise..which of them, in retrospect, don't seem like good points anymore?  If you were to start all over or start on a different board, what would you keep and what would you cut?

(March 8, 2019 at 10:24 am)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(March 8, 2019 at 9:44 am)CDF47 Wrote: After design is proven the extent of design is not totally known. 

Still waiting for design to be proven.

Quote:Like I said, there may be some randomness built into the design but one thing is sure.  The universe and living systems are designed.

You say alot of shit, should I go back to posting the things you say side by side and asking you which of the two assholes had it right?  

Quote:I am not rejecting anything but a multiverse which was the atheist scientist attempt at explaining the fine-tuned universe which had a beginning in a Big Bang and continues to expand.  That universe creating machine that makes the multiverse must be finely-tuned though if it were to exist.

.......................................?  

So, alot of people wonder what the point in engaging with you or maintaining this thread may be.  They wonder this because you present a picture of a seriously dense person.  Why continue knowing that the nut will continue to be a nut?  For what it's worth, if a person engages with you or in this thread in some doomed attempt to make you less of a nut then there's no point to that at all.

You, otoh, have a strong reason to begin engaging with your own thread.  OFC you'll still be a nut, but 1235 pages worth of consideration could have helped you to form a better argument, a cogent one that isn't self contradictory, at least.  You've squandered that opportunity.  If you think that this subject is important, and you've repeatedly claimed that you do, then perhaps you ought to put in the sort of work an important subject deserves?

Again, functional genetic code proves design.

I am simply not sure about the extent of randomness inside the universe.  I don't think anyone is.

I am not a nut.  That is all you can do is name call.  I did not contradict myself in this thread.  I simply do not know the extent of randomness.  Big deal.

---

(March 8, 2019 at 11:03 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: @CDF47

There is literally no way for me to determine whether you are a troll, or just really simple-minded. Have you ever heard of Poe’s Law?  It does not follow that just because you don’t appear to be intentionally breaking any rules, that the quality of your contributions are worth responding to. But, it also doesn’t follow that just because you don’t appear to be intentionally breaking any rules, you aren’t, in fact, trolling us. In other words, given the lack of substance in your posts, your motives for being here are irrelevant. You’re a surface level nuisance, and I’m getting a little tired of folks feeding your presence here, while simultaneously complaining about it. If they starve you, you will go somewhere else for the attention you clearly crave. Of that, I am certain.

I am not a troll.  I am not trying to deliberately get a rise out of anyone.  I am not here to cause havoc and dismay.  I have an opposing opinion from people here is all.  An eternally important one in my opinion.  Isn't this the sort of discussions people should be having on a site like this though?  Listening to and discussing opposing views?

---

(March 8, 2019 at 11:14 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: If this one goes away another one will make a new thread filled with the same stuff, that's just how it works here at AF.  The existence and maintenance of this thread starves other would-be beheites and trolls, they just can't compete with the raging dumpster fire.

We watched it happen with Ev, lol.  So..you know..working as intended.  

I am not a beheite.  There are molecular machines.  That is not disputed.

---

(March 8, 2019 at 11:23 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: Begs the question of what you think a good point looks like.  Nevermind that, though.....of all the different "points" you've tried to raise..which of them, in retrospect, don't seem like good points anymore?  If you were to start all over or start on a different board, what would you keep and what would you cut?

I think I would keep everything exactly the same.  I spoke the truth in this thread and I stand by my points that I made.

What a nut.

(March 8, 2019 at 11:23 am)CDF47 Wrote: Again, functional genetic code proves design.

You've been reasserting this since page one..but have never gotten past the assertion phase, never engaged.  

The assertion itself is demonstrably false, even if the claim of being designed by a god were true.  

Quote:I am simply not sure about the extent of randomness inside the universe.  I don't think anyone is.

I am not a nut.  That is all you can do is name call.  I did not contradict myself in this thread.  I simply do not know the extent of randomness.  Big deal.

You've repeatedly expressed your beliefs in an atheistic scientific conspiracy, and I could..at any point, go back to posting your contradictory statements side by side as I did previously.

You're a nut.  

Quote:I am not a beheite.  There are molecular machines.  That is not disputed.

And?

Quote:I think I would keep everything exactly the same.  I spoke the truth in this thread and I stand by my points that I made.

Then you're failing this very important subject, failing god, and failing yourself. You couldn't even manage to speak the truth in this post, let alone the thread.

It's okay for you to think we were designed. You're going to think that no matter what, you're a nut. However, when repeatedly confronted with the failure of an assertion on factual grounds.... the thing to do, in pursuit of honesty or truth, is accept that the reason you've given for that belief was in error. There may be some other reason, a good reason, even, to believe the things that nutters believe...but if there is, this assertion simply isn't one of them.

(March 8, 2019 at 11:23 am)CDF47 Wrote: I have an opposing opinion from people here is all.  An eternally important one in my opinion.  Isn't this the sort of discussions people should be having on a site like this though?  Listening to and discussing opposing views?

Tell us, CDF, if that is such an eternally important thing about the world, about reality, don't you think that the designer would be a bit more keen on making everyone see how obvious it is?
Instead, we get you. Spouting biased views on top of biased views, unable to discern belief from knowledge. Don't you think the alleged designer of a system such as the DNA, who would make it important for us humans to acknowledge its existence, would also have made it obvious, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that it exists?
The absence of such a mechanism tells us one of two things:
1. There is no designer
2. The designer doesn't care if we believe that it exists, or not

Either way, you're wrong.

(March 8, 2019 at 11:14 am)Gae Bolga Wrote: If this one goes away another one will make a new thread filled with the same stuff, that's just how it works here at AF.  The existence and maintenance of this thread starves other would-be beheites and trolls, they just can't compete with the raging dumpster fire.

We watched it happen with Ev, lol.  So..you know..working as intended.  

Sure, and I’m not trying to tell people who they can and can’t respond to.  Folks are free to feed this particular reeking, dumpster fire until the second coming for all I care. 😏 However, some of the folks tossing in kindling are the same folks who are using the report function to complain about the quality of CDF’s responses. As I said; self-inflicted pain and suffering. They’re either engaging an idiot, or feeding a troll.

@CDF47

You don’t discuss. You assert, and repeat.

Carry on.

(March 8, 2019 at 11:23 am)CDF47 Wrote: Again, functional genetic code proves design.

You keep making this claim. At no point have you moved beyond making the claim.

Where is this proof? Can you show it to us? No, of course you can't. All you can do is make the claim over and over and over and....

(March 8, 2019 at 9:30 am)CDF47 Wrote: Everything in the universe is designed.  It just all does not contain functional codes like the genetic code which proves design.  It is also not all fine tuned like the universe constants,...

So then your god is not omnipotent.
He has to make life happen in the universal constant's range.
Kind of a stupid limited deity. If he were a real deity, he could make life happen in any environment.