RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
May 15, 2018 at 7:31 pm
(This post was last modified: May 15, 2018 at 7:32 pm by CDF47.)
(May 15, 2018 at 7:27 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: The mark of a theist is his truth is only true if he can convince others to believe it as he has convinced himself to believe it.
Hence the pulpable frustration of the CDF47. It has to be true because he must be saved. yet why do people not believe it and thus deprive him of this consensus that would allow him to sleep the perfect dream of salvation?
The answer, CDF, is we are confident you can never be saved.
God willing, I can be.
(May 15, 2018 at 7:27 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:Quote:Fair enough. You will never find a natural cause for the information in DNA, I predict. Information always comes from an intelligenceAssertion and Assertion
Quote:You all just try to discredit the ID scientists, many of which are brighter than you. It's a debate trick. Dr. Meyer is a brilliant scientist.There are no ID scientists and I don't need to discredit them there choice to push pseudoscience has already done that . It has nothing to do with debate or trickery it's a fact . And no Meyers is Charlatan in a lab coat
Quote:Yes, they do.No they do not
Quote:No, it's not.Yes it is
Quote:See my top response above.Your response is non answer
Quote:No, you areNope you are
Quote:Any source which posts ID will just be called an illegitimate source by you guys so it's pointless debate. It's just a debate trick is all, even when numerous reputable sources are provided.Nope any source of ID is a propaganda site and no legit by definition .i has nothing to do debate they are bunk sites they push bunk idea's . And any legit sources you provide you distort for your ID agenda .
Quote:It's not a matter of opinion that can be disagreed on . Your wrongDisagree
Quote:Exactly, using God's materials.Nope using naturally formed materials . There is no reason to compare man made objects to living things it's a fallacious comparison without merit .
Quote:No, it's not.Yes it is
Yes it isQuote:No, it's not.
Disagree