DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Peebo-ThuhluEDIT: Nope. Quote thingy is still borked. Bugger
[quote pid='1879462' dateline='1548283349']

 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.

========================================================================

1. As I stated about 5 or so posts ago.  I don't even remember at this point.  Much has gotten lost over the course of a few days, and I'm not about to dig through 50 pages to remind myself.

2. I didn't support his overall claim.  In fact, I know I stated that I don't say I support "I.D." as a concept, but I do adhere to the idea of creation.  I.D. includes a lot of conjecture from multiple perspectives, that may or may not be accurate depending on who is telling it.  So anything outside of what the Bible says, I don't go out of my way to tie my name into it.  Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.  I wasn't there.

3. Sometimes you sound brilliant.  Sometimes you remind me of a goldfish floating upside-down in a bowl.  I prefer the former, but I take what I can get. (The goldfish was a bit of an exaggeration)

4. I don't not support either of you.  I hope you are both well, and if I had my way, you two would be the two brightest human beings in the universe.  But things are what they are and we all have to make due with what's in front of us.  As far as your duel with CDF47, you both seem to be trying to refute the other, but the responses are so open-ended that it's hard to make heads or tails of what either of you are doing.  That's why when you said something about 150 years, I questioned you on it.  Because the claim is so broad that you can't logically refute someone's claim with it.  It would require one to assume you had all this knowledge and were an authority.  Maybe you do?  Who knows.  But I tend not to blindly believe people because they "said so."  I want to know how they came to their conclusion so I can come to that same conclusion similarly.  Just let facts speak for themselves.  If it makes perfect sense, I can't argue with it and would have no intention of doing so. Therefore, I would agree.

The quote function gets out of whck so easily here.

 1) Yup. No worries.

 2) Yah, I've moved on from the I.D. thing. Which I thought was a 'Thing' that CDF47 was tieing into. Will await CDF47's clarification.

 3)    You're welcome to fek yourself as well.

 4) If you want to continue to be wrong about my conversation with CDF47, that's fine with me. I'll leave you and pocaracas to discuss the finer points of biology. My layman's mind certainly isn't up to the task.
[/quote]

3. lol

4. I'm not suggesting I'm right.  I could very well have perceived it wrong.  But considering how many posts are in this thread, and how many I've actually read, I just went with what I could tell from when I jumped in.  Not about to read though that many posts just because it would be tedious.