RE: DNA Proves Existence of a Designer
January 1, 2019 at 7:03 am
(This post was last modified: January 1, 2019 at 7:09 am by T0 Th3 M4X.)
(January 1, 2019 at 6:04 am)Amarok Wrote:Quote:No, sorry. Atheism and science don't go together. It's nonsense based on more nonsense. If your foundation is flawed, then what you perceive based on it will also have be flawed. We don't need anymore nutties telling people that the universe came from nothing, when science has shown us that no natural process creates, generates, or forms something from nothing. It's ridiculous at its core. Just as organic life doesn't randomly generate by some accident from inorganic matter, then gain in complexity over billions of years. More nonsense concocted by nutty atheists.So a bunch of arguments from credulity and straw men very good
Also, you don't tell me what dictionaries are for. I can't make up my mind for myself. If you want to go through life being a puppet and having everybody tell you what to think, then go for it.
Quote: Nah, just get sick of the crybaby atheists who try to censor books and other media. Let people explore and think for themselves.So a bunch of BS creationist whining and conspiracy tripe
Nope. Reality. Atheist nonsense. They don't want to believe something so they start making things up.
"Someone says "creation" and "complexity" together, so now we don't accept the term "complexity."
(January 1, 2019 at 6:38 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: What is the process that this intelligent designer used to make the DNA?
What was the process and where did it get the stuff?
Where is the evidence for the designing that cannot be accounted for by other means?
To me this is the "stuff exists therefore god" argument, which seems to be all they have now.
- It says in Genesis 1.
- If God made the "stuff", then why would God need "the stuff" to make "the stuff." (Your question isn't rationale)
- Well let's see you account for it by another means. Can't wait to hear this. Regardless, you can have two routes that could potentially lead to the same place. Suggesting something new doesn't mean it replaces what is already known.
If you want to indicate it all happened naturally, then why should I disregard science and assume your idea is better? Something from nothing? Organic from inorganic, then gaining in complexity? Is there are YT video that demonstrates no matter and *boom* matter. If you have a link to one, I would love to see it.