(January 22, 2019 at 11:37 pm)CDF47 Wrote:(January 22, 2019 at 9:31 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Uhm... no.
My post was a question. To which, if you notice, you (CDF47) reply with exactly the words I posted and in the affirmative.
Which thence kind of shows where CDF47's mind is at in regards to thier even cursory understanding of anything scince related.
Sadly, this open and acknowledging comment leaves no room for doubt as to CDF47 complete lack of understanding on the conversation and the topic at hand.
Pretty sure the thread's main purpose is over now. CDF47 doesn't even understand the very basic tennent of which they're actually trying to make a point for.
All the very best CDF47.
I did not use your exact words. What are you talking about. I had to re-phrase the entire thing to make it accurate.
And, yes, I do understand the conversation and topic at hand.
(January 22, 2019 at 10:12 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think maybe you're both confusing each other. He's suggesting something partially, but your conclusions are kinda "out there" too.
I don't want to speak for him, but looking at it based on what I know so far is him trying to say that the way DNA works as a code couldn't have happened without intelligent input. In other words, the design of the code proves a Designer.
Yes, no where in there do I mention the Intelligent Design movement. My point is on DNA.
(January 22, 2019 at 10:33 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:
(January 22, 2019 at 10:12 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: I think maybe you're both confusing each other. He's suggesting something partially, but your conclusions are kinda "out there" too.
I don't want to speak for him, but looking at it based on what I know so far is him trying to say that the way DNA works as a code couldn't have happened without intelligent input. In other words, the design of the code proves a Designer.
It's the "Nothing can falsify it" bit where CDF47 jumps the shark, M4X.
Though bravo for padding up and stepping onto the crease for CDF47.
Rather sad that he's already swung his bat back through the stumps.
Still... we'll see how long the thread continues to run.
I say in the OP that it is proven so this nothing new where I state nothing can falsify it.
[/quote]
You are now REPEATING that the concept of I.D. cannot be falsified.
I am not misquoting you.
Perhaps trying to say your thoughts using different words?
Are you not now wording better-er?
