DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

No, but I was talking to you.  Didn't realize that people needed special permission from your majesty to address you or your statements.

It is not majestic to refuse a chess match with a pigeon, It's having better things to do.

Oh, but I like Chess.  Even better when the opponent assumes I'm a pigeon.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Must admit, I stand in awe of The Last Poet's ramming girth of personality.

To CDF47? While a Youtube clip can represent science. A Youtube clip is, in and of itself, not 'Science'.

What might it be you're disinclined to have taught, M4X? .

---

At work.

Oh, but I like Chess.  Even better when the opponent assumes I'm a pigeon.

Come now M4X. People aren't saying you have a totally fowl personality.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I've read numerous scientific papers on it in the past, and I'm happy to read scientific papers on it today.  The thing is, it's not just one theory anymore.  It's multiple theories that keep changing.   That's the problem with human bias.  You'll get an increasing number of people saying they have a better explanation.  Quite honestly, I appreciate the beauty of personal opinion/bias, but I don't have time to visit everybody's personal take on something.   There are many things out there more relevant to my own life, so that's what I try to focus more of my precious time on.

I'm happy to consider the math you're suggesting, but please provide something that is conclusive if you choose to do so.  So far I've gotten two different numbers. 85 percent and 95 percent.  A 10 percent disparity in the universe's matter is quite a disparity.  Also, please keep in mind that I'm not a mathematician.  In college I took statistics and classes related to research methods, and as such I understand those aspect of applied mathematics.  If the math gets too complex, I may have to defer to a professional who can analyze it more readily.

Of course it's complex... not sure even I can follow it properly, but I'm not the one interested in redoing what they did, so... for a quick fix, this will have to do, and if you wish follow through the references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

And you may want to read what these guys say (again, following the references for more info):
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questi...ryonic-mat

I read the link for the CDM Model, but these problems still remain -

- It asserts that the CMB is evidence of the BBT, but actually it was the problem.  They didn't find what they predicted (smooth), but rather found something else (lumpy).  That's just putting it simply of course.
- As such, they're using dark matter to prove the BBT without first proving dark matter exists.
- If you can't show it exists, then it makes no sense to say it makes up almost the entire universe.
- This model doesn't state a point, but a rapid appearance.  The original model was a point.  They couldn't establish a point, so I can see why they swapped it out.  But this actually favors creation.

The whole thing doesn't prove, but rather assumes.  When it can prove rather than assume, then it's worth serious consideration.

[Brian37]

It is not majestic to refuse a chess match with a pigeon, It's having better things to do.

Oh, but I like Chess.  Even better when the opponent assumes I'm a pigeon.

If you are defending old mythology, then yea, you are a pigeon.

[pocaracas]

Of course it's complex... not sure even I can follow it properly, but I'm not the one interested in redoing what they did, so... for a quick fix, this will have to do, and if you wish follow through the references:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

And you may want to read what these guys say (again, following the references for more info):
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questi...ryonic-mat

I read the link for the CDM Model, but these problems still remain -

- It asserts that the CMB is evidence of the BBT, but actually it was the problem.  They didn't find what they predicted (smooth), but rather found something else (lumpy).  That's just putting it simply of course.
- As such, they're using dark matter to prove the BBT without first proving dark matter exists.
- If you can't show it exists, then it makes no sense to say it makes up almost the entire universe.
- This model doesn't state a point, but a rapid appearance.  The original model was a point.  They couldn't establish a point, so I can see why they swapped it out.  But this actually favors creation.

The whole thing doesn't prove, but rather assumes.  When it can prove rather than assume, then it's worth serious consideration.

By your standards, nothing can prove creation either, so creation is also not worth serious consideration. Correct?

The existence of a CMB at all is evidence of the Big Bang.
That the CMB is "lumpy" is evidence that some directions seem to be preferred... what caused that, when the observable cosmos cannot account for it, is what is being labeled as Dark matter and/or dark energy.
The thing is there and its effects are observable.

Just like the electrons are flowing along under your fingertips when you type on your keyboard or smartphone, you can't really see the individual electrons, but you can see their effect.

[CDF47]

At work.

Must admit, I stand in awe of The Last Poet's ramming girth of personality.

To CDF47? While a Youtube clip can  represent science.  A Youtube clip is, in and of itself, not 'Science'.

What might it be you're disinclined to have taught, M4X? .

---

At work.

Oh, but I like Chess.  Even better when the opponent assumes I'm a pigeon.

Come now M4X.  People aren't saying you have a totally fowl personality.

The Youtube clip is clear evidence of design.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I read the link for the CDM Model, but these problems still remain -

- It asserts that the CMB is evidence of the BBT, but actually it was the problem.  They didn't find what they predicted (smooth), but rather found something else (lumpy).  That's just putting it simply of course.
- As such, they're using dark matter to prove the BBT without first proving dark matter exists.
- If you can't show it exists, then it makes no sense to say it makes up almost the entire universe.
- This model doesn't state a point, but a rapid appearance.  The original model was a point.  They couldn't establish a point, so I can see why they swapped it out.  But this actually favors creation.

The whole thing doesn't prove, but rather assumes.  When it can prove rather than assume, then it's worth serious consideration.

By your standards, nothing can prove creation either, so creation is also not worth serious consideration. Correct?

The existence of a CMB at all is evidence of the Big Bang.
That the CMB is "lumpy" is evidence that some directions seem to be preferred... what caused that, when the observable cosmos cannot account for it, is what is being labeled as Dark matter and/or dark energy.
The thing is there and its effects are observable.

Just like the electrons are flowing along under your fingertips when you type on your keyboard or smartphone, you can't really see the individual electrons, but you can see their effect.

I haven't set out to prove creation.  We are talking about the "non-observable" past.  But what you shared suggested that "time" and "space" were suddenly just there as an expanse rather than a point.  That's pretty much what the verse in the Bible says as well.  In the beginning (time), God created the heavens and the earth (space).

Agreed there is a "lumpy effect"m which is why someone asserted "dark matter."


Again, I don't have a problem with saying there's dark matter.  But if I can't directly observe it, it just exists as a possibility (to me).

[Abaddon_ire]

Nothing you've ever stated could ever be misconstrued as facts.  Bless.

RAmen

All I speak are facts and atheists try to dispute them.

Nope. You keep lying about DNA is machine code when it isn't.

Disagree? The go ahead and provide the op-code/operand structure of DNA, Or the mnemonic/symbolic structure of DNA, or the function limits or fork/join functions, anything.

You can't because you have no clue what those are.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

The Youtube clip is clear evidence of design.

So, yes, a Youtube clip is evidence of something being designed.

Watching a Youtube clip does little more than entertain.

The value, educational or other wise, of such a video definitely doesn't rate as high as an actual accredited journal paper.

It's not 'Actual' science. It's more like a colloquial chat.

Now if you want to present a proper, peer reviewed paper on the subject?

[Bucky Ball]

Dark Matter is simply a name given to something we cannot observe directly 'hence dark matter' but we can very much see the effects of. We have lots of evidence it exists.  The nearest thing to it would be gravity, we don't actually know what gravity is, but we observe its effect very well and could show evidence that gravity is present.

Same with dark matter, what it is made of is a mystery but again it effects are predictable and observable. So we know 'something' is there and can prove it. DarK Matter is simply a placeholder name given to it, till hopefully one day we do.

https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter

He wants to "see" it, and you forgot the "compressed rock".