DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

The ark may have been found by the CIA decades ago but I am not going to get into that debate.  I saw the may bit in the article.

And we finally get to the source of Mr Inquisition's theology.  The only source of "knowledge" he accepts is LaHaye and Jenkin's left behind series.

I didn't say for sure but there is a story about it.

---

The evidence is that the information is not only extremely complex (like machine code but way more complex) it is also functional (like machine code).  It encodes the construct of proteins in the cell.  See the videos in my signature.

That is not evidence that this complex information system could not have evolved.  At best, it's evidence that the explanation for the evolution of this information needs to be a very good one.  Those aren't at all the same thing.  The former gets you to the conclusion that a god or designer is necessary to explain that information.  The latter does not.  The latter only gets you to either: a) we don't currently have such an explanation, or b) that we actually do already possess a compelling explanation.  In neither case does it get you to the conclusion that there is no natural explanation possible for this information and therefore a god or designer is necessary.

This point keeps being made to you over and over again, yet you're apparently too stupid to realize that this is fatal to your entire argument.

Now, provide some evidence of what you claimed, namely that DNA couldn't have evolved through natural means, or else shut the fuck up and go away.

---

You can come and have dinner with me and my christian wife, buddy.  I cook like a motherfucker - make you think about sellin your soul...and I'll tell you the same things.  Little known fact, I have a quasi-religious prohibition against turning down a stranger knocking at my door.  I feel that it's my sacred duty to feed those people and tell them good jokes, and send them on their way with whatever they need to get to the next place,.  The trick..is that you can't ask or plan it, you just have to show up.  If you ask, I'll just tell you no because I'm the goddamnned hospitality grinch, lol.

Good to know!  What was your address again?

You deny the truth right before your eyes.  Unreal.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are stories about all sorts of things....you don't believe everything any rando says, do you? 

You deny the truth right before your eyes. Unreal.

What truth, about what? I was just confirming to Jor that I was totally down to have a bitchin cookout if Jor ever passed through....? You too..even though you're a tedious piece of work. Who knows, maybe my better half might rub off on you in the process, lol. She manages to be the christian you just can't seem to force yourself to be. All the jesus, none of the fucking idiocy.

Deep down...you see...I fear that if there ever is some post mortem reckoning, it won't be on account of my not goose stepping to some magic book that I get denied entry to valhalla, or that I didn't die with my blade in hand (though I absolutely will...count on it! - imma get buried on my own land, gun in fucking mitts....)...but that I turned out a hungry traveler.

: shrugs :

[CDF47]

Sorry for the slow response. I decided to take a couple days as a breather from this place.  Although I enjoy a lot of the conversations, it can be a bit over the top at times, so for my own good I needed to step back.  Had to go back and find your post as well.

I'll try to provide thoughtful answers, but if I don't tough on something, feel free to follow up.  I also agree with your statement about rare phenomena being natural.

1. I'm mostly speaking subjectively here, so please keep that in mind.  I think that once you see something at what would be considered the "point of no return" and that somehow changes with no apparent natural explanation, then it becomes a piece of a larger puzzle.  He had what was called "Wegener's Granulomatosis", which is an autoimmune disease that constricts the blood vessels and as such it begins to shutdown various organs.  He was in an advanced stage of this, and I believe the prognosis was less than 30 days.  It was also over 30 years ago when there were less known treatment options. I think I mentioned earlier that he had to go to another state so they could administer an experimental treatment.  Addtionally, he was getting blood transfusions.  When everything was thought to have failed, the doctors were the ones who prayed for him.  From that moment, he began to recover.  Maybe a year or two later, it had completely vanished and he was back to work.  He went back and worked about another 25 years, until he retired around age 72-73. A little bit grumpier than he used to be, but regardless, he's still around.  In fact, visited me yesterday.  So to answer your question more directly, I don't know that there is, or even has to be, a method to distinguish.  If something happens, we just measure it against ourselves and do our best to understand.  Over the course of life, hopefully that leads us down a path we are content with.

Sorry for my tardy response!  The holidays were a blur, as I'm sure you can relate! So, I'm hoping that you don't mind if I critique some of the logic you've laid out in your response above.  Please understand, I am not criticizing you as a person, nor your emotions as they relate to this experience with your dad.  I don't find pleasure in putting others down, but I do think that it is fair to critique an idea or a belief, which is what I will do here. Though you did not explicitly state as such, you seem to be suggesting that because your father recovered after the doctors began praying for him, this would indicate that the cause of his subsequent recovery was the prayer itself.  I'm not sure if you are familiar with logical fallacies, but there is one here.  In plain language, this is a, 'after it, therefore because of it', fallacy.  In other words, just because event B follows event A, this does not necessarily mean that event A caused event B.  You would need some supporting evidence here, and/or have demonstrated that you have ruled out other possible causes for your father's recovery, such as currently unexplained, yet natural causes.  This point circle's us back to my original question to you: how can we determine what point is the "point of no return", as you put it? Since we both agree that rare, naturally caused medical phenomena do, in fact, occur, by what method can we reach the conclusion that an affliction is 'beyond the point of a rare, yet naturally caused healing, and requires a miracle?'  If we have no method by which to make this distinction, than we can never reasonably conclude that a miracle had to be the cause. Or, is even the most likely cause. Does that make sense?  Would you agree with me when I say that a reliable methodology is crucial to reaching conclusions that are highly likely to be true?

2. I think it reflects genuine love for the human condition from God (if you will).  If just for the sake of discussion, we assume God, and we see a belief from various backgrounds that He does intervene very directly at times, then maybe it would be better to understand why it is like that.  My belief (again subjective) is that there is a greater understanding of where we are at as individuals, rather than just being bound by our interest in a religion of ideology.  I know everybody doesn't accept the Bible, but if we go by it, then a woman named Rahab, who was regarded as a prostitute and a harlot, through an act of faithfulness, managed to end up being the great great great great great etc... grandmother of Jesus.   Of course some may say "it didn't happen", but if it did, then for me I can consider it, and that is another piece that can go into that larger puzzle.

Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly: you're saying that these experiences and interventions by god, don't necessarily lead people to a specific religion, but rather, to the more general notion that things happen to us for a reason that is important to our own individual experience with god. Would that be a correct summation of what you said above?  Please correct me if I've misunderstood.  I think that, as you said, if we assume for the sake of the argument that a personal god does exist, and does intervene in the lives of humans, than your point is a reasonable one, yes. 

Feel free to respond at your leisure, and I hope you had a nice Christmas!

I appreciate your questions and your kindness.  If you would like me to clarify or expand on anything feel free to ask.  Also, can you share a little about your background in terms of life, religion, atheism, or whatever it is you define yourself by? Thanks.

Well, I'm married with two young boys.  I'm a dietitian, but currently a stay-at-home mom for the kids until everyone is in school.  I was raised Christian (Episcopalian), but Christianity fell apart for me in my late teens.  I was in sort of the, "I'm not sure what's out there, but I'm not really interested in thinking about it too hard" camp until about a year after the birth of my first son.  For some reason I started spending many nights awake perseverating on that very question, and I came to the conclusion that I didn't have any reasons or evidence to hold onto a belief in god, and it just sort of fell away.  I grieved that loss for a long time, but this community has helped me process that grief, and has been personally fulfilling on a number of levels.  The people here have become an important part of my life.  Hope that helps you understand me a little better!  What about you? Any kids?  What do you do?  Do you identify as a member of a specific religion?

That's a really interesting story.

---

You all should be very very excited.
CDF47's "lit up the sky" miracle happened again today, (praise Jebus)
https://abc7ny.com/electrical-arc-turns-...c/4977959/

Just think of how many gazillion beliebers will begin their new life of belief today. Halleluia. Amen.

Another miracle I witnessed is I never use the Lord's name in vain.  Even in the past, I hardly ever did that.  I never swore at my mom either.  Anyway, one day when I was 17 I both swore at my mom and used the Lord's name in vain at the same time.  Within two seconds lightning hit the tree in front of my house which fell on my car and crushed the roof of the car.  I was still able to open the door though.  There are others but those are just two that really stand out to me.

---

There are stories about all sorts of things....you don't believe everything any rando says, do you? 

You deny the truth right before your eyes.  Unreal.

What truth, about what?  I was just confirming to Jor that I was totally down to have a bitchin cookout if Jor ever passed through....?  You too..even though you're a tedious piece of work.  Who knows, maybe my better half might rub off on you in the process, lol.  She manages to be the christian you just can't seem to force yourself to be.  All the jesus, none of the fucking idiocy.

Deep down...you see...I fear that if there ever is some post mortem reckoning, it won't be on account of my not goose stepping to some magic book that I get denied entry to valhalla, or that I didn't die with my sowrd in hand (though I absolutely will...count on it! - imma get buried on my own land, gun in fucking hand....)...but that I turned out a hungry traveler.  

: shrugs :

No, there are many things I don't believe or am uncertain about.  

Thanks for the invite.  If I am ever out your way I will give you a shout.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hardly ever, or never....don't swear at your mom, or only sometimes......and whats miraculous about not saying a word?  This one seems like the last "miracle"..pious fiction.

God shot lightning at you, for swearing at your mom? Which god...fucking zues, and he has something against cars?

Did the car use potty words.....? WTF?

[Bucky Ball]

Another miracle I witnessed is I never use the Lord's name in vain. Even in the past, I hardly ever did that. I never swore at my mom either. Anyway, one day when I was 17 I both swore at my mom and used the Lord's name in vain at the same time. Within two seconds lightning hit the tree in front of my house which fell on my car and crushed the roof of the car. I was still able to open the door though. There are others but those are just two that really stand out to me.

LOL
He can do that, but not cure even one baby of cancer.

You're such a a silly man.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for the invite.  If I am ever out your way I will give you a shout.

Do, food and company is a world apart from ideological differences, it's universal.

[Angrboda]

You deny the truth right before your eyes.  Unreal.

I have never put anyone on ignore in over 30 years of electronic discussions, yet you make the prospect of doing so highly attractive. This is not evidence, this is just more stupid and ignorant bleating on your part.

I pointed out why what you have provided does not constitute evidence for what you have claimed. Either point out how I am wrong, provide some evidence, or shut the fuck up and go away.

Repeating your ignorant and stupid denials to the contrary isn't any of the above. I have denied no 'truth', because what you consider truth is nothing more than false bullshit.

False bullshit does not become evidence by your repeating it.

EVIDENCE OR GTFO.

[CDF47]

Hardly ever, or never....don't swear at your mom, or only sometimes......and whats miraculous about not saying a word?  This one seems like the last "miracle"..pious fiction.

God shot lightning at you, for swearing at your mom?  Which god...fucking zues, and he has something against cars?  

Did the car use potty words.....?  WTF?

For someone that doesn't believe in a Creator I am not surprised that you would think nothing of it.

[CDF47]

Thanks for the invite.  If I am ever out your way I will give you a shout.

Do, food and company is a world apart from ideological differences, it's universal.

Nice.

---

You deny the truth right before your eyes.  Unreal.

I have never put anyone on ignore in over 30 years of electronic discussions, yet you make the prospect of doing so highly attractive.  This is not evidence, this is just more stupid and ignorant bleating on your part.

I pointed out why what you have provided does not constitute evidence for what you have claimed.  Either point out how I am wrong, provide some evidence, or shut the fuck up and go away.

Repeating your ignorant and stupid denials to the contrary isn't any of the above.  I have denied no 'truth', because what you consider truth is nothing more than false bullshit.

False bullshit does not become evidence by your repeating it.

EVIDENCE OR GTFO.

A mountain of evidence is provided throughout this thread starting on page 1.

[Angrboda]

I have never put anyone on ignore in over 30 years of electronic discussions, yet you make the prospect of doing so highly attractive.  This is not evidence, this is just more stupid and ignorant bleating on your part.

I pointed out why what you have provided does not constitute evidence for what you have claimed.  Either point out how I am wrong, provide some evidence, or shut the fuck up and go away.

Repeating your ignorant and stupid denials to the contrary isn't any of the above.  I have denied no 'truth', because what you consider truth is nothing more than false bullshit.

False bullshit does not become evidence by your repeating it.

EVIDENCE OR GTFO.

A mountain of evidence is provided throughout this thread starting on page 1.

I pointed out quite clearly why that wasn't evidence for what you claimed two posts ago. If you're too stupid to understand it, or too intellectually dishonest to reply to the arguments, then maybe you shouldn't post anymore until you are. You've provided jack shit in terms of evidence for your claim that the information could not have arisen through natural means. The "can't" there is the critical part. Even if I were being generous, one could only conclude based upon what you've provided that it is unlikely that natural means could produce such information, not that they "can't" produce it. When it is rephrased that way, one has to ask what the reason for its apparent unlikelihood is? And the answer to that is that we don't yet possess an impeccable chain of evidence linking the dirt to microbes to man story. But we don't need to have such an impeccable explanation for two reasons. First, the assertion that nature can't do it because it's unlikely to do it is fallacious, what is likely does not inform what is possible. The second is that the assessment of its likelihood is based upon the absence of knowledge -- namely the lack of an impeccable explanation -- and so that assessment is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, and so the conclusion doesn't follow. We can't know things simply based upon the things we don't know. That's simply faulty reasoning. Yet that has been your repeated basis for the claims that you have made.

So, again, provide some actual, positive evidence that natural means "can't" produce this information instead of this weak sauce shit about, "we don't know, therefore God!" That's a fallacious argument to its core, yet that is all that you've provided. So I'll say it again, provide some evidence of your claim that natural means "can't" produce complex information or shut the fuck up with these repeated lies about what you have provided.