DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

It is His will that it continue then.  He's not a wish master.

I think it is his will that he does not exist.   Further more he thought it would be hilarious for you to still believe in him.  He washed his hands of your stupidity before having his own will done.

The reality is, He does exist.

---

Those are some good questions.  You'll have to give me just a bit of slack because some of this I would have to do a little bit of digging to accurately answer them.

- It tends to be consistent in and of itself, but I also believe there is a consistency in practice too. Sometimes we can get caught up in the fine details that we overlook the principles behind something.  If I actually go out and follow those practices, what happens?  Well, when I don't, a lot of times it becomes problematic.  Not controlling anger or even going to sleep while angry is not a good thing, and it clearly tells us these things.  But when your focal point becomes loving God and one another, then it becomes more like being in a family.   Of course we can always look at things from a different angle.  That is true even of the Bible.  You can read about bad things happening, and even followers of Christ making these mistakes.  David is a good example of this.  I'm sure you know the story of David and Bathsheba.  He was king, sought after another man's wife, tried to cover his tracks but God knew all along, yet God calls David a man after "His own heart."  It wasn't about the mistakes David made, but how he self-evaluated and allowed for correction.   Sometimes he needed a reminder, but he always got there.  After the event with Bathsheba, Nathan was sent to him and he told the story (2 Samuel 12) of a rich man with many lambs and a poor man with one lamb who his had raised and always loved.  A travel came to see the rich man, and instead of taking one of his own lambs, he took the poor man's lamb to feed him, rather than one of his many. The indication is that David took the story as literal, then he demanded justice for the poor man.  Then with the help of Nathan, it was made clear that David was that man.  This is what changed David's course.  He realized he did something wrong, and once it was clear to him, he did a hard reset and got back on track.  That is also what is expected of us.  It's less about the mistake, and more about being on track with who we knew we should be.  The Bible tells us that once we are forgiveness, God literally forgets.  It describes him as "casting our sins as far as the east is from the west (Psalm 103:12)."

The story of David seems to me to be a perfect example of a very normal man who is then shown what a conscience is... perhaps the story is a bit romanticized, but take out the god part, or replace it with a wise man, an elder, David's father, or uncle, or teacher, and the result could very well be the same, no?

- Had to look up the word "retcon." 

That's why I left a link on that word.
I know that most people aren't savvy of comic book/scifi lingo... but it does fit remarkably well with some parts of religious text of old.

You could perceive it that way.  There are always different ways to look at something.  There are even times we simply don't know all the details, and a guess is the best we can do.  In light of, you can always look for more information and even stay neutral on a specific detail.  That's the thing with learning, there's always more information out there.  Sometimes it's good information that leads us to something, and other times it's bad information that sets us backwards.   To debate against it being a retcon, I would have to admit that I don't have adequate knowledge at this time to do so, but I don't find it likely that it would've been based on the beliefs of the Essenes, since they were known to mesh together different beliefs.  However, they were known for being analytical, so I could see them having manuscripts. I don't have enough information to state anything conclusively though, so I'll stick to "I dunno."

Wow...
You just became my third favorite theist on this site!    
Not many are willing to say "I don't know" like that.

- If I just had to assume, then it definitely wouldn't be the Sadducees based on their view of resurrection.  Pharisees would be a definite because we know at least Paul was one and also the son of a Pharisee.  Essenes not likely since they allowed for elements of mysticism.  There are several instances in the Bible where it may be indicating Essenes, but it doesn't specifically mention them by name.  For example in Col 2:18 it talks about not being caught up in worshiping angels with those who do.

Yes, precisely. Why would it not mention them by name, not even once, in your opinion?
We can easily see John the Baptist as an Essene, right?

I can hazard a guess as to why the Essenes are never mentioned... Because many of them would later become Christians. And, if Chrstianity is seen as a progression from a previous state of affairs where the philosophy was already mostly there, then the significance and influence of Jesus becomes diminished.
If the Essenes are not a part of the history, then Christians are immediately seen as an overwhelming mass of converts in a very short time - a clear sign of a miracle, of the veracity of the stories, etc...
Just spread the word that this new fellow, Christ, is the Zedek from the old stories.

We have groups today that consider themselves to be Essenes.  The nature of it all is rather eccentric and kind of a mix of many different ideologies and mysticism.  Of course the ancient Essenes ceased.  When I read about them more though, it kinda reminds me of that order in Game of Thrones.  I don't know if you have watched it, but anyway there is an order that seemingly means well, but they have very eccentric ways of going about it.  Anyway, probably irrelevant to this.  Here's the reference to Paul being a Pharisee.

Ah... yes...

Am I in your top 3, LOL?

---

Still waiting for your answer, CDF.....

This is nothing more than an assertion.  Nobody is disputing that DNA and life are amazing.  What we dispute is that you have reasons or evidence that it could not have come about by natural means.  And for the umpteenth time, saying that it came about by chance alone, and that this is all that natural causes are is a lie and a straw man.  Natural selection isn't random.  If you can't stop lying about this, then I'm going to simply keep pointing out that it's a lie, and that you're aware it's a lie, which makes you nothing more than crassly dishonest.  Regardless, you have provided an assertion, and an assertion is neither evidence nor a reason.  I specifically asked you for reasons or evidence.  If you can't tell the difference between an assertion and reasons or evidence, then it's obvious why you think you've provided evidence, because you don't know what evidence is.  Your assertion cuts no ice.

So I'll ask you again.  Do you have any reasons or evidence for your belief that DNA could not have arisen through natural means?

The proof is in the information properties of DNA.