DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Peebothuhlu]

 Is this your level of understanding of the theory M4X?

You both are making claims.  Like I said, I'm not taking sides.   Just looking at what you are both saying and trying to make rhyme or reason as to the point of either.

I don't favor him over you,  if that's what you're suggesting.  I favor what is understood.  If you provide it, then no reason to disagree.

When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.

- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore

If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more.  As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing.  Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.

It's not the end all.  As a whole, it's not a theory anyway.  Just nuts calling it a theory to try to mask the holes in it.  Same as calling the "Big Bang" a theory, when they never found what they were looking for.  If it was a valid "theory" we wouldn't have multiple versions, and people arguing about whose current version is correct.  Now when you start to branch off those ideas, some of it is valid, because some of it is observed.

EDIT: Nope. Quote thingy is still borked. Bugger

 1) "You both are making claims."

Okay. What are my claims? What are CDF47's claims?

 2) "Like I said, I'm not taking sides."

 You are, however, supporting CDF47 claims and not supporting any claims made by others.

3) " Just looking at what you are both saying and trying to make rhyme or reason as to the point of either."


 That's nice. I hope I'm being clear and concise.

 4)  "I don't favor him over you,  if that's what you're suggesting.  I favor what is understood.  If you provide it, then no reason to disagree."

 You didn't understand my thrown in vernacular but that's okay. I was complimenting you for supporting CDF47.

A) When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.


- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore

 This shows you might have  a lack of understanding as to what 'Falsifying' means. I provided examples of falsification for evolution previously. I am simply asking CDF47 to offer something of the same, if possible, for his position.

B) If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more.  As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing.  Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.

 Again, I am not telling CDF47 that he is wrong. I am asking him why he is right.

C) As a whole, it's not a theory anyway.  Just nuts calling it a theory to try to mask the holes in it.  Same as calling the "Big Bang" a theory, when they never found what they were looking for.  If it was a valid "theory" we wouldn't have multiple versions, and people arguing about whose current version is correct.  Now when you start to branch off those ideas, some of it is valid, because some of it is observed.

 I ask again for you to expand/elaborate on what you think 'Evolution' is.