DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Very best of luck with that pocaracus.

Close your eyes...



Now open them.... read my nick slowly.
Read what you wrote.


I know, I know... it's a running gag that everyone gets my nick wrong... but I too must play my part of trying to act frustrated and correct you guys!    

---

If there was nothing, then you wouldn't get a positive result.

No necessarily...
Remember the Leprechaun...  I told that story for a reason. And this was that exact reason: positive results can be had, even when the underlying phenomenon has nothing to do with the positive result obtained.
Especially in psychology!

If I say there is an apple on the tree, and you go out and do not see an apple on the tree, then you would conclude the negative.  You don't know for sure unless you seek the source.  The apple determines itself.  If the apple is there, then there you go.   If your own bias tells you not to look, that there is no such thing as an apple, or you simply don't care enough to look, then you will never know.  I can be part of the solution, but I'm not sufficient to be the answer.

What if I don't see the apple because you just saw a small balloon that's shaped like an apple?
Or if it's just a red leaf that's broad enough for you to confuse it with an apple? But, given that someone else had primed you to think that you'd find an apple, you saw it as an apple.
Priming, that's the word that corresponds with the psychological phenomenon here.
Have you ever heard one of those songs played backwards that allegedly feature some devilish incantation? Well, here's one small internet article on it, with a link to a proper study or two on the subject:
https://curiosity.com/topics/heres-why-m...curiosity/

If your brain can be primed to hear things, believe you me that it can be primed to see things... you may start reading about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)

As far as the priest goes, we can go round and round about who it was or is today, but either what that priest said is universal or it isn't. As far as empirically establishing the identity, then I would have to say, respectfully, I wouldn't attempt to at this time.

I know... it's speculation at best.

If I tell you there's an apple, you look for an apple, and you see an apple on the tree, are you going to say it's a balloon, are you schizophrenic, or are you going to say it's an apple?  You know the apple because it has the attributes.  You can pull the apple off the tree, slice it, taste it.  At what point will you agree it's an apple?  Will you even look?  If you never look for the apple on the tree, you will not likely ever find the apple, and even if you did, you wouldn't know if it was the same apple.

If you want to talk about "priming", wouldn't it be fair to say that you could be priming yourself?  You have placed a limitation on what you can find, so you will only see that limitation.  You have predetermined the outcome.  I believe it would fall under negative episodic priming, meaning you have flagged something in your mind to ignore it.

I'm sure we could go through an endless list of whys and why nots.