DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

Consider the statement:

"Doctor, I have been experiencing headaches since yesterday."

The patient just made a subjective statement.  How do you proceed?   Is their subjective evidence that warrants a conclusion?

---

 Uhm... no.

The patient is definately NOT making a subjective statement.

That they are stating that they feel pain can be demonstrated.

The feeling of pain is definately NOT subjective.

It can be measured. It can be detectied. It can be quantified.

Your analogy would seem to show that you do not understand.

Not at work.

---

---

 Now you are making subjective statements.

What deity?  What explanations?  You're not even following the conversation.  That doesn't make any "deity" look incompetent.  It makes you look incompetent, but who cares, right?  It's just friendly conversation, so why elevate it to that.  No need for logical fallacies.  Just explain your position.  I asked for an example, but didn't get one.  I provided one, so you can either agree, disagree, assert a rebuttal, or do nothing.  What else is there?  If you have a rebuttal, then I'll consider it and form my own position "yay" or "nay" based on it.  It can be simple and doesn't have to turn into an argument.

Once you start shifting to other things, it doesn't serve a purpose.  "Deity" has nothing to do with this.  What you're doing is known as  the tu quoque fallacy, or whataboutism.

 I think CDFD47 can engage in converstaion quite well on their own.

I haven't shifted anything. How about you just concentrate on our conversation, hmmm?

Not at work.

---

The prophecies are accurate in the Bible.  The Bible is not a science book.

The devil thought he was equal and rebelled but was cast out of heaven and is spiritually here on Earth.

I'm not talking about anything 'Prophetic'.

I'm pointing out that your 'Three Onmi' deity created everything.

One of its creations was another entity which had the capacity to succesfully rebel against said omnipotence etc.

Think about that.

If your diety is the absolute 'Top of the heap' then how could anything possibly equal it?

How could anything else be strong enough to ignore your diety's dictates?

Not at work.

And the weird seeming ablity of the forum to combine posts of its own violition is another, new and slightly distrubing quality I've just noticed/discovered.

The devil is not nearly as strong as the Lord.  He is nothing more than an ant in strength compared to God's strength.

---

I haven't failed at any of those things.  The reason I am speaking of religion is because of the religious implications of the science.

You haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. For once, have the intellectual honesty to admit that you have failed---big time. You have repeatedly made claims here which you can't back up with evidence of any kind.

There is plenty of historical evidence of Christ and other Biblical stories.

---

No the stats are arguable. 

No they really aren't and even if they were it's a fact that most scientists regardless of  religious affiliation accept evolution  and the those who don't are a small minority . Hell  your buddyEveria failed despite here attempt to use "big names " as if science is built on celebrity status and then only to show there ignorance or their dishonesty (seriously instead of reading the peer review literature meeting someone for lunch to explain complex scientific idea's and idiotically weaving conspiracies ) and even her supposed paper debunking macro evolution was written by two scientist\s who wholly accept the theory . 

See the stats I provided earlier in this thread. 

Rubbish 

Plus, it is almost the nature of that business to have an atheist religion almost following Darwin.

The nature of science ? it's history would disagree and science isn't a " business "let alone a religion and no one worships Darwin his idea's have been plenty questioned in mainstream science and some of his idea's even modified .

---

I haven't failed at any of those things.  The reason I am speaking of religion is because of the religious implications of the science.

You and your buddy Evera failed to do both .

I provided accurate stats a number of times in this thread.  Darwin is heavily followed in the scientific community despite the gaping holes in his theory related to macro-evolution and common ancestry and the lack of origins.  

We didn't fail at anything.

---

Atheism is not a religion ... IF you say it is, you have no respect for your own, comparing atheism to your own religion.
The stats are not arguable, and your argument is circular and you DEFEAT your own point. IF scientists reject your crap, than you have to STOP using the scientist argument.


You have not one shred of evidence for any reality other than the one we know when things were "perfect".
If man does something, it's irrelevant to creation.

I do not not believe in god because of Darwin or evolution. I don't believe because I find it stupid.
All the science does is show I'm right.

And lets remember that before Darwin or the big bang theory or any of the other myriad things that show that god didn't do what god had always been assumed to have done and that the earth is not the age the bible said it was and that the exodus never happened etc. Even before all that, there were people who did not believe. And I think that the reason they didn't believe was because its obviously a bloody silly idea with nothing really going for it.

I don't just not believe in god, I find it a laughable idea.

It's true and the exodus did happen.