DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Below is some information on the historical Jesus (not proselytizing, this is based on an earlier argument in this thread):

https://www.christianheadlines.com/colum...igure.html

I will get back to responding to some posts.

---

The Lord used some evolutionary processes but not common ancestry.  That is the problem with your equation.

No it's you who is compartmentalizing like you have done before

---

It was explained well

I heard the responses and I disagree with them in some respects.

---

The Lord used some evolutionary processes but not common ancestry.  That is the problem with your equation.

There is no lord.  That’s the problem with you.

---

She was not.  It is not funny to laugh at psychiatric patients as well. 
[

Of course one so muddleheaded as you, who adheres to the religion that kept itself alive for 2000 years by pretending insanity is wisdom, would not see a psychiatric wreckage arguing Out of the full flowering of her madness for your religion To be the nutcase case she is.

But she is more than just a psychiatric case, deep as her madness might be.  I would never laugh at her psychiatric affliction.  I do, however, find the rest of her richly deserving of ridicule.

But on this occasion, my laughter is not prompted by her risibility, great as that risibility might be.   I direct my laughter at you, for you make yourself equally risible by remaining so besotted by Your utterly ridiculous religion such that even though you are nowhere near as clinically mad as she, you would see the hysterical ramblings of her madness to be good arguments for your religion.

Some of her arguments were good arguments for my religion and some I disagreed with.  She was not a nutcase though.

---

The Lord used some evolutionary processes but not common ancestry.  That is the problem with your equation.

Why would it be problematic for me to see you confirm assumptions three and four, while strongly implying agreement with my assertions regarding the sufficiency of evolutionary process in an explanation for assumption two?

All you're doing is confirming the validity of my inference.  Evolutionary process, rather than your god, explains our design.  Since your gods existence is predicate on the claim that your god explains our design, and in point of fact that you have just acknowledge..something else explains that....your god does not exist.

Maybe some other god does...but not CDFgod.  

Unless you'd like to take another crack at it, lol.  It's a fucking ridiculous argument, but it was purpose built just for you, so that no matter what you chose to reject or confirm...you'd just be tripping over your own dick.

I don't disagree with your math.  I disagree that evolution is what you define it as.  That's one of our main differences.  There is no common ancestry with man and monkey.

---

You can't validate a claim of nonexistence unless you define what it means to exist.  I could say "Scooby Doo exists" and I could say  "Scooby Doo doesn't exist" and both statements could be right simultaneously in their own context.  Additionally, if you asked people randomly, "who is Scooby Doo?", most would probably answer without any regard for fact, fiction, ideology, or religious belief.

That's the thing with a lot of the atheism vs theism debates.  Much of it gets baked together unnecessarily, then you get a bunch of people yappin about how those on the other side of the fence are wrong.  Optimally people would just work together to find answers and accept multiple possibilities when something is unknown.

Nice.  Sounds really good.  I have my reasons for my beliefs though but I would not beat them down anyone's throat.  If they want to hear it they can listen.  If they don't then they don't have to.

---

You can't validate a claim of nonexistence unless you define what it means to exist.  I could say "Scooby Doo exists" and I could say  "Scooby Doo doesn't exist" and both statements could be right simultaneously in their own context.  Additionally, if you asked people randomly, "who is Scooby Doo?", most would probably answer without any regard for fact, fiction, ideology, or religious belief.

I'd say that, when people are discussing religion, "existence" pertains to only non-fictional things or characters; physical existence.

Certainly, there must be some physicality to fictional things, as they must somehow occupy the mental space, but those are solely in that mental realm, and without any presence outside of minds.

Scooby Doo exists as a fictional character, as a mental construct, well known to be a human invention and not an actual existing dog outside of human minds.

The concept of god, however, if it is fiction, is not well known to be a human construct, because it has been in human minds since before the advent of writing. Couple that unknown with the generations of people convinced of the actual existence of the god character and you have grounds for much misinformation.
On the other hand, if the god concept is not fiction, its apparent absence out of human minds does raise the question of what is the role of the clergy. Are they actual representatives or charlatans with (mostly) good intentions?

That's the thing with a lot of the atheism vs theism debates.  Much of it gets baked together unnecessarily, then you get a bunch of people yappin about how those on the other side of the fence are wrong.  Optimally people would just work together to find answers and accept multiple possibilities when something is unknown.

I agree.
If it's unknown, should the starting point be "I believe this thing exists and I'll do anything to find it and convince others that it exists so that they too can look for it", or "I have no reason to accept that this thing exists, but if it is found then lets add it to our collection of knowledge"?

The charlatans are to be expected though.  I think the Bible makes it clear there will be many false teachers.  It is like the devil infiltrated the church with these people.

---

She was a good poster.  Sucks she got banned.  I wonder what she did to get banned.  If a moderator sees this if they could PM me I would appreciate it?  It must have been posting those videos but she stopped when she was told to.

Wait, how do you know she was told to do anything?

I saw a post where someone told her to stop spamming videos because it is against the rules and is trolling.  She was trying to get us to 1000 pages quicker so she posted a bunch of random videos.

---

The big ball of energy said so.

She never said big ball of energy....,LOL.  Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

---

[Everena] was a good poster.  Sucks she got banned.  I wonder what she did to get banned.  If a moderator sees this if they could PM me I would appreciate it?  It must have been posting those videos but she stopped when she was told to.

In the Banned thread, 11/18/18, LastPoet said: "Banned Everena for trolling. You were given fair warning only to piss and shit on our words."

I see.  Thanks for letting me know!

---

The historical Jesus post I made is not a proselytizing post.  It is based on that earlier argument we had regarding the historical Jesus.

---

Makes sense, yes.


And we can also generate new facts about Scooby.
Just like the Star Wars universe is still expanding.

But, concerning gods, the information about their (supposed) fictionality is lost to time.
Sure, we can also gather knowledge about how people relate to this entity which they have no way of knowing is real. We can observe many people behaving quite nicely towards others, mostly due to their conviction that such an entity is keeping an eye out for them.
We can philosophically consider the nature of such an entity, how it could fit in with all the traditional wisdom around it, like "all-powerful", "eternal", "creator", "perfect", etc. And many such considerations can be made to appear very convincing, very flawless... thus perpetuating the belief in the (apparent) unknowable...
But, as it is with many philosophical theses, there are people who remain unconvinced, there are people who understand philosophy as a mental exercise and always require its results to be put to a reality check. And, thus far, this reality check has yielded nothing.
The deeper we probe reality, the less divine there is.
So much so that gods are now solely a non-corporeal entity, no mass, no matter, no energy (Everena! no Energy! Energy is mass, if you had a bit of education in science, you'd know). This fact of absence of Energy poses a problem, as it is apparent that everything that we might call real has or is energy. Except empty space-time, right?.... well, science has probe deep in there and has seen how empty space-time isn't really empty and it can thus randomly generate real energy and matter - clearly we haven't observed a whole Universe being generates like this, but a few particles can be measured... look up the Casimir effect.
So, if one posits the eternity of space-time, it is not too far-fetched to consider the rare, but not impossible eventuality of the random generation of enough energy that becomes a Universe.
If this is how the Universe has actually come to be, and if space-time is indeed infinite in all 4 dimensions in all directions, then the divine entities that mankind has worshiped, that philosophers have convinced themselves are real  aren't so real after all... at least, they aren't the creators and designers of reality. Their existence is limited to the same kind of existence as Scooby Doo.

I ask you, what is the greatest assumption, to consider an ever-existing divine entity, or an ever-existing space-time?

I like your thinking, so +1 in my book.

My answer to your question is that I couldn't rule out either, and I don't think I could be intellectually honest to myself if I did.  Maybe there's some balance between the two ideas even if the solution is currently being overlooked.  That's why I believe it's important to continue to explore things, but with limited bias.  If you take an atheist and a theist, and they work together to both determine and rule out things, then we further our capacity to have better human relationships.  To say one is greater, I would need to prescribe some type of value to both, but I don't think it's necessary.  If both exist, then there may be an agreement or relationship between the two that I would want to understand.  In which case I would not only want quantitative data, but qualitative data as well.  Same thing as going into a jungle and living in a tribe of monkeys.  I could go in there and learn things, and I wouldn't have to apply any numerical value for anything, but rather observe how they treat me and how my relationship to them changes.  Maybe they adopt me as one of their own.  Maybe there's some conflict I have with the alpha.  Maybe as time goes on those relationships change.  That alpha could hate me, but conforming to him some may lead to acceptance.  So in regard to the universe or a divine entity, hopefully I can respect both, and likewise both can respect me in their own capacity.

Great post!