DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The comparison is fair within their own context. 

Cool, then demonstrate how the devil made angels follow him against better knowledge, knowing its against their interest and that they didnt follow him because they had good reasons to do so.
What was the devils "heavenly program" by the way? What was his plans after the overthrow of god. You seem to know a lot about this stuff. Like i said, probably i was better than "worship me or burn forever"?

Not sure where you came up with the part about God doing nothing.

Did god stop the angels from following the devil? Did god stop the devil from making the angles following him?

There's literally a war taking place and the angels are put in a position to fight for their home. 

Is or was?   Are you trying to say the rebellion is still ongoing?

Is that not appropriate?  If so, why not?  If someone tries to break into your home with bad intentions, how would you respond?  Would you react or simply hope the police show up in time to save you?  Sometimes it's necessary to fight our own battles and for good reason.  It doesn't mean we're alone in it all.  Add in that Satan was cast down by who?  Oh, the God would you suggested did nothing.

Cool, another false analogy, since its always a good idea to double down when called out on BS. Shall we engage in this?
Nahh...
But cool story, bro. Tho, i prefer Game Of Thrones, far less immorality and cruelty imho (Ramsay actually at some point stopped torturing Theon, you know).

The buyers don't have to "assume" anything.  They give him power by their actions. 

Dude, how long is your attention span on average? I didnt bring up the

Sometimes you can give someone power by assuming they rightfully have power

crap, but you did. Stop debunking your own arguments.   Or, if you wish to continue to do so, please let me have my dinner in the meantime.  

If not, where does his/her power come from?  If they can't tell drugs to anyone, how can they operate?  There's an old saying about drug dealers, and I might flub it up just a bit, but here it is in context.  "The best drug dealers are the ones who don't personally indulge in the product they sell."  Why?  Because they do not become subject to the condition, but rather enjoy the bounty of it in its fullness.  As soon as they start smoking or sniffing whatever it is, they lose profit and start to create dependency on it.  You've probably heard the old saying, "The first taste is always free."  Why?  Because of that same principle.  It's not intended to be free.  It's intended to trigger dependency so the subsequent interactions with the person aren't free for them.  In other words, they're gaining a customer.

Are we back to the drug dealer anaolgy yet?
Blablabla. How long do we have to endure your long winded rationalisation of this silly story and its finished? Whats your point anyway? If the devil was able to gather angels around him like a drug dealer gathers addicts, feel free demonstrate the veracity of your claims, At this point i have to get a bit impatient and ask you to please slow down your boring false ananolgy story telling and rationalizing. You are spewing BS faster than i could spill coffe on my keyboard.

On that basis, your ad hoc rationalization claim is dismissed.

Its christmas dude, dont be so cruel to me.  
So, on what basis are you dismissing? By continuing to rationalisze with false analogies and boring stories about drug lords (no pun intended)?

When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it implies the statement or argument wasn't sufficient, which in this it case was explained.  When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it also doesn't negate the original statement or argument, but rather indicates a N/A for one specific item or point.  Anything else?

When did i claim you have commited a logical fallacy? Right, never.  

Now you're not making sense.  You want me to explain subjective choice?  I can't speak for "angels" as to why they chose something.  Maybe they wanted to.  Maybe they were promised something.  Did you want me to go seek out and ask them all?  Are you assuming I have some special power to go into the past to read minds?  I would suggest that your question is misplaced.  As far as were they stopped from making a choice, it was never implied, so there's really no point unless you can validate some reason why they would need to have been prevented from making a decision.  Again, another misplaced question.  Of course if you can explain the necessity, then that could always be retracted and revisited, but no reason to prematurely on something implied by you.

The statement about the rebellion would be correct in both past and present tense.  There was a rebellion, as an independent event, and rebellion that continues.


So far it seems like you're more interested in claiming fallacies than actually engaging material objectively.  I'm guessing this is a trend with you when you discuss things with people who think differently.  I could be wrong, but I guess time will tell.  It's usually better to explore things with objectivity if you want to have productive dialogue though, so something to consider. Cheers.