DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Deesse23]

The devil is not nearly as strong as the Lord.  He is nothing more than an ant in strength compared to God's strength.

His pride got in the way and he was able to gather up to 1/3 or so of the angels of heaven to rebel.

Weak as an ant but manages to gather a significant portion of gods minions around him, in the presence of the most powerful entity.ever? Impressive! I guess this devil-guy has a lot of charm and charisma. Please, tell me more about him and his ideas.
How again do you know the devil is the evil one and god the good one? 

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The devil is not nearly as strong as the Lord.  He is nothing more than an ant in strength compared to God's strength.

His pride got in the way and he was able to gather up to 1/3 or so of the angels of heaven to rebel.

Weak as an ant but manages to gather a significant portion of gods minions around him, in the presence of the most powerful entity.ever? Impressive! I guess this devil-guy has a lot of charm and charisma. Please, tell me more about him and his ideas.
How again do you know the devil is the evil one and god the good one? 

Sometimes you can give someone power by assuming they rightfully have power, when you could simply say "no" to them.  Kinda like a drug dealer trying to make money.  He/she isn't interested in the people that say "no" every time, because there's nothing tangible to gain from it.  However if they know someone will say "yes" and even commit crimes to gain the money to pay for the drugs, then that's who they're going to keep going to.  And no, this wasn't an anti-drug post.

[GUBU]

There is plenty of historical evidence of Christ and other Biblical stories

Point us in the direction of some then. Because all I've seen has been, like the Testamonium Flavorum and Tacitus, either forgeries or late period insertions.

Also the bible doesn't count, it is the claim, not evidence.

[downbeatplumb]

I provided accurate stats a number of times in this thread.

You provided doo doo 

  Darwin is heavily followed in the scientific community

Darwin isn't followed by anyone evolution is accepted because it's true 

despite the gaping holes in his theory related to macro-evolution and common ancestry and the lack of origins

There are no significant gaps and macro evolution despite your compartmentalization is a fact of biology and the origins of life don't concern evolution and we are working on it nor is it a challenge to the theory 

We didn't fail at anything.

You failed at everything

The problem with fixing a gap in the fossil record is that you create two gaps one either side. So unless you have every single stage of evolution then the cretinists claim gaps are there. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

[Deesse23]

Weak as an ant but manages to gather a significant portion of gods minions around him, in the presence of the most powerful entity.ever? Impressive! I guess this devil-guy has a lot of charm and charisma. Please, tell me more about him and his ideas.
How again do you know the devil is the evil one and god the good one? 

Sometimes you can give someone power by assuming they rightfully have power, when you could simply say "no" to them.  Kinda like a drug dealer trying to make money.  He/she isn't interested in the people that say "no" every time, because there's nothing tangible to gain from it.  However if they know someone will say "yes" and even commit crimes to gain the money to pay for the drugs, then that's who they're going to keep going to.  And no, this wasn't an anti-drug post.

Lets stick for a secfond with your comparison:
You just compared the devil to a drug dealer and angels with drug addicts? Were the angels depending on the devil (like drug addicts)? Your god, the policeman was watching the drug dealer and his addicts, and did nothing?

However:
Addicts dont *assume the drug dealer rightfully has power*, they pretty much know that there is nothing *rightful* about a drug dealer. They despise him, but depend on their dealer. They are acting against their own interest, and they know it. Thats nothing like a charismatic devil gathering many angels around him, in order to rebel against a god that is infinitely more powerful, but just cant be arsed to do anything about it. So your comparison doenst fly anyway, nice try for an ad hoc rationalisation though, like usual.
So, please tell me more about this interesting devil guy, and those ideas that obviously sparked interest in at least 1/3 of gods angels. Probably they were better than just "worship me or burn forever"? Seems to have good leadership qualities as well, this guy. Not to mention the balls one needs to rebel against soeone you know is more powerful than yourself, because...well hes god.

Anyhow, do you have anything to substantiate your weird comparison, or did you just make this up?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Sometimes you can give someone power by assuming they rightfully have power, when you could simply say "no" to them.  Kinda like a drug dealer trying to make money.  He/she isn't interested in the people that say "no" every time, because there's nothing tangible to gain from it.  However if they know someone will say "yes" and even commit crimes to gain the money to pay for the drugs, then that's who they're going to keep going to.  And no, this wasn't an anti-drug post.

Lets stick for a secfond with your comparison:
You just compared the devil to a drug dealer and angels with drug addicts? Were the angels depending on the devil (like drug addicts)? Your god, the policeman was watching the drug dealer and his addicts, and did nothing?

However:
Addicts dont *assume the drug dealer rightfully has power*, they pretty much know that there is nothing *rightful* about a drug dealer. They despise him, but depend on their dealer. They are acting against their own interest, and they know it. Thats nothing like a charismatic devil gathering many angels around him, in order to rebel against a god that is infinitely more powerful, but just cant be arsed to do anything about it. So your comparison doenst fly anyway, nice try for an ad hoc rationalisation though, like usual.
So, please tell me more about this interesting devil guy, and those ideas that obviously sparked interest in at least 1/3 of gods angels. Probably they were better than just "worship me or burn forever"? Seems to have good leadership qualities as well, this guy. Not to mention the balls one needs to rebel against soeone you know is more powerful than yourself, because...well hes god.

Anyhow, do you have anything to substantiate your weird comparison, or did you just make this up?

The comparison is fair within their own context.  Not sure where you came up with the part about God doing nothing.  There's literally a war taking place and the angels are put in a position to fight for their home.  Is that not appropriate?  If so, why not?  If someone tries to break into your home with bad intentions, how would you respond?  Would you react or simply hope the police show up in time to save you?  Sometimes it's necessary to fight our own battles and for good reason.  It doesn't mean we're alone in it all.  Add in that Satan was cast down by who?  Oh, the God would you suggested did nothing.

The buyers don't have to "assume" anything.  They give him power by their actions.  If not, where does his/her power come from?  If they can't tell drugs to anyone, how can they operate?  There's an old saying about drug dealers, and I might flub it up just a bit, but here it is in context.  "The best drug dealers are the ones who don't personally indulge in the product they sell."  Why?  Because they do not become subject to the condition, but rather enjoy the bounty of it in its fullness.  As soon as they start smoking or sniffing whatever it is, they lose profit and start to create dependency on it.  You've probably heard the old saying, "The first taste is always free."  Why?  Because of that same principle.  It's not intended to be free.  It's intended to trigger dependency so the subsequent interactions with the person aren't free for them.  In other words, they're gaining a customer.


On that basis, your ad hoc rationalization claim is dismissed.  When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it implies the statement or argument wasn't sufficient, which in this it case was explained.  When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it also doesn't negate the original statement or argument, but rather indicates a N/A for one specific item or point.  Anything else?

[Deesse23]

The comparison is fair within their own context. 

Cool, then demonstrate how the devil made angels follow him against better knowledge, knowing its against their interest and that they didnt follow him because they had good reasons to do so.
What was the devils "heavenly program" by the way? What was his plans after the overthrow of god. You seem to know a lot about this stuff. Like i said, probably i was better than "worship me or burn forever"?

Not sure where you came up with the part about God doing nothing.

Did god stop the angels from following the devil? Did god stop the devil from making the angles following him?

There's literally a war taking place and the angels are put in a position to fight for their home. 

Is or was?   Are you trying to say the rebellion is still ongoing?

Is that not appropriate?  If so, why not?  If someone tries to break into your home with bad intentions, how would you respond?  Would you react or simply hope the police show up in time to save you?  Sometimes it's necessary to fight our own battles and for good reason.  It doesn't mean we're alone in it all.  Add in that Satan was cast down by who?  Oh, the God would you suggested did nothing.

Cool, another false analogy, since its always a good idea to double down when called out on BS. Shall we engage in this?
Nahh...
But cool story, bro. Tho, i prefer Game Of Thrones, far less immorality and cruelty imho (Ramsay actually at some point stopped torturing Theon, you know).

The buyers don't have to "assume" anything.  They give him power by their actions. 

Dude, how long is your attention span on average? I didnt bring up the

Sometimes you can give someone power by assuming they rightfully have power

crap, but you did. Stop debunking your own arguments.   Or, if you wish to continue to do so, please let me have my dinner in the meantime.  

If not, where does his/her power come from?  If they can't tell drugs to anyone, how can they operate?  There's an old saying about drug dealers, and I might flub it up just a bit, but here it is in context.  "The best drug dealers are the ones who don't personally indulge in the product they sell."  Why?  Because they do not become subject to the condition, but rather enjoy the bounty of it in its fullness.  As soon as they start smoking or sniffing whatever it is, they lose profit and start to create dependency on it.  You've probably heard the old saying, "The first taste is always free."  Why?  Because of that same principle.  It's not intended to be free.  It's intended to trigger dependency so the subsequent interactions with the person aren't free for them.  In other words, they're gaining a customer.

Are we back to the drug dealer anaolgy yet?
Blablabla. How long do we have to endure your long winded rationalisation of this silly story and its finished? Whats your point anyway? If the devil was able to gather angels around him like a drug dealer gathers addicts, feel free demonstrate the veracity of your claims, At this point i have to get a bit impatient and ask you to please slow down your boring false ananolgy story telling and rationalizing. You are spewing BS faster than i could spill coffe on my keyboard.

On that basis, your ad hoc rationalization claim is dismissed.

Its christmas dude, dont be so cruel to me.  
So, on what basis are you dismissing? By continuing to rationalisze with false analogies and boring stories about drug lords (no pun intended)?

When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it implies the statement or argument wasn't sufficient, which in this it case was explained.  When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it also doesn't negate the original statement or argument, but rather indicates a N/A for one specific item or point.  Anything else?

When did i claim you have commited a logical fallacy? Right, never.  

[T0 Th3 M4X]

The comparison is fair within their own context. 

Cool, then demonstrate how the devil made angels follow him against better knowledge, knowing its against their interest and that they didnt follow him because they had good reasons to do so.
What was the devils "heavenly program" by the way? What was his plans after the overthrow of god. You seem to know a lot about this stuff. Like i said, probably i was better than "worship me or burn forever"?

Not sure where you came up with the part about God doing nothing.

Did god stop the angels from following the devil? Did god stop the devil from making the angles following him?

There's literally a war taking place and the angels are put in a position to fight for their home. 

Is or was?   Are you trying to say the rebellion is still ongoing?

Is that not appropriate?  If so, why not?  If someone tries to break into your home with bad intentions, how would you respond?  Would you react or simply hope the police show up in time to save you?  Sometimes it's necessary to fight our own battles and for good reason.  It doesn't mean we're alone in it all.  Add in that Satan was cast down by who?  Oh, the God would you suggested did nothing.

Cool, another false analogy, since its always a good idea to double down when called out on BS. Shall we engage in this?
Nahh...
But cool story, bro. Tho, i prefer Game Of Thrones, far less immorality and cruelty imho (Ramsay actually at some point stopped torturing Theon, you know).

The buyers don't have to "assume" anything.  They give him power by their actions. 

Dude, how long is your attention span on average? I didnt bring up the

Sometimes you can give someone power by assuming they rightfully have power

crap, but you did. Stop debunking your own arguments.   Or, if you wish to continue to do so, please let me have my dinner in the meantime.  

If not, where does his/her power come from?  If they can't tell drugs to anyone, how can they operate?  There's an old saying about drug dealers, and I might flub it up just a bit, but here it is in context.  "The best drug dealers are the ones who don't personally indulge in the product they sell."  Why?  Because they do not become subject to the condition, but rather enjoy the bounty of it in its fullness.  As soon as they start smoking or sniffing whatever it is, they lose profit and start to create dependency on it.  You've probably heard the old saying, "The first taste is always free."  Why?  Because of that same principle.  It's not intended to be free.  It's intended to trigger dependency so the subsequent interactions with the person aren't free for them.  In other words, they're gaining a customer.

Are we back to the drug dealer anaolgy yet?
Blablabla. How long do we have to endure your long winded rationalisation of this silly story and its finished? Whats your point anyway? If the devil was able to gather angels around him like a drug dealer gathers addicts, feel free demonstrate the veracity of your claims, At this point i have to get a bit impatient and ask you to please slow down your boring false ananolgy story telling and rationalizing. You are spewing BS faster than i could spill coffe on my keyboard.

On that basis, your ad hoc rationalization claim is dismissed.

Its christmas dude, dont be so cruel to me.  
So, on what basis are you dismissing? By continuing to rationalisze with false analogies and boring stories about drug lords (no pun intended)?

When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it implies the statement or argument wasn't sufficient, which in this it case was explained.  When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it also doesn't negate the original statement or argument, but rather indicates a N/A for one specific item or point.  Anything else?

When did i claim you have commited a logical fallacy? Right, never.  

Now you're not making sense.  You want me to explain subjective choice?  I can't speak for "angels" as to why they chose something.  Maybe they wanted to.  Maybe they were promised something.  Did you want me to go seek out and ask them all?  Are you assuming I have some special power to go into the past to read minds?  I would suggest that your question is misplaced.  As far as were they stopped from making a choice, it was never implied, so there's really no point unless you can validate some reason why they would need to have been prevented from making a decision.  Again, another misplaced question.  Of course if you can explain the necessity, then that could always be retracted and revisited, but no reason to prematurely on something implied by you.

The statement about the rebellion would be correct in both past and present tense.  There was a rebellion, as an independent event, and rebellion that continues.


So far it seems like you're more interested in claiming fallacies than actually engaging material objectively.  I'm guessing this is a trend with you when you discuss things with people who think differently.  I could be wrong, but I guess time will tell.  It's usually better to explore things with objectivity if you want to have productive dialogue though, so something to consider. Cheers.

[CDF47]

Merry Christmas everyone!

---

His pride got in the way and he was able to gather up to 1/3 or so of the angels of heaven to rebel.  There was a war in heaven and the Lord cast out the devil.

 The devil's pride.... was big enough and powerful enough to defy your diety?

Again. I am asking you how did your devil rebel? Not what caused it to rebel. That your diety first made the devil adn then, some how, said devil was able to rebel against something that was Omnipotent etc?

Not at work.

The devil is the birth of evil.  He wanted the Lord's throne.  

He went to war with the Lord and His angels.  That's how he rebelled.

---

 The devil's pride.... was big enough and powerful enough to defy your diety?

Again. I am asking you how did your devil rebel? Not what caused it to rebel. That your diety first made the devil adn then, some how, said devil was able to rebel against something that was Omnipotent etc?

Not at work.

Did all this happen "in time"?
Had god created spacetime for these angels to exist in a framework with time, so they could perform temporal actions such as rebelling and the like? Was this in parallel with the Universe unraveling?

Not in our space-time.  They existed outside the boundaries of this universe before this universe was created in the third heaven.  Our sky is the first heaven, the universe with the stars are the second heaven, heaven is the third heaven.

---

Do the cherubim really sit on chairs ?

We know where "angels" came from.
Micha-el
Rapha-el
Uri-el
Ari-el

Messengers of the Babylonian gods --- EL
Straight out of Babylonian mythology.

No Babylonian myth steals from reality.  They even have a false trinity of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.

---

I do not not believe in god because of Darwin or evolution. I don't believe because I find it stupid.
All the science does is show I'm right.

And lets remember that before Darwin or the big bang theory or any of the other myriad things that show that god didn't do what god had always been assumed to have done and that the earth is not the age the bible said it was and that the exodus never happened etc. Even before all that, there were people who did not believe. And I think that the reason they didn't believe was because its obviously a bloody silly idea with nothing really going for it.

I don't just not believe in god, I find it a laughable idea.

It's true and the exodus did happen.

Despite being regarded in Judaism as the primary factual historical narrative of the origin of the religion, culture and ethnicity, Exodus is now accepted by scholars as having been compiled in the 8th–7th centuries BCE from stories dating possibly as far back as the 13th century BCE, with further polishing in the 6th–5th centuries BCE, as a theological and political manifesto to unite the Israelites in the then‐current battle for territory against Egypt.[3]
Archaeologists from the 19th century onward were actually surprised not to find any evidence whatsoever for the events of Exodus. By the 1970s, archaeologists had largely given up regarding the Bible as any use at all as a field guide.
The archaeological evidence of local Canaanite, rather than Egyptian, origins of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40‐year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[4] The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult objects are of the Canaanite god El, the pottery is in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing Israelite villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail...r-fiction/

---

There is plenty of historical evidence of Christ and other Biblical stories.

---

Yet another worthless claim for which you can provide not a single shred of credible evidence.

We're still waiting for you to corroborate even one alleged prophecy from the Book of Daniel.

I provided evidence in the post above.

I covered the Book of Daniel already.  He predicted three future kingdoms of the four kingdoms listed.

---

I provided accurate stats a number of times in this thread.

You provided doo doo 

  Darwin is heavily followed in the scientific community

Darwin isn't followed by anyone evolution is accepted because it's true 

despite the gaping holes in his theory related to macro-evolution and common ancestry and the lack of origins

There are no significant gaps and macro evolution despite your compartmentalization is a fact of biology and the origins of life don't concern evolution and we are working on it nor is it a challenge to the theory 

We didn't fail at anything.

You failed at everything

All wrong.

---

The devil is not nearly as strong as the Lord.  He is nothing more than an ant in strength compared to God's strength.

His pride got in the way and he was able to gather up to 1/3 or so of the angels of heaven to rebel.

Weak as an ant but manages to gather a significant portion of gods minions around him, in the presence of the most powerful entity.ever? Impressive! I guess this devil-guy has a lot of charm and charisma. Please, tell me more about him and his ideas.
How again do you know the devil is the evil one and god the good one? 

God is totally holy and just.

---

There is plenty of historical evidence of Christ and other Biblical stories

Point us in the direction of some then.  Because all I've seen has been, like the Testamonium Flavorum and Tacitus, either forgeries or late period insertions.

Also the bible doesn't count, it is the claim, not evidence.

I linked a source {https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/guest-commentary/was-jesus-a-historical-figure.html}.  I also provided one for Exodus.

[Deesse23]

Now you're not making sense.  You want me to explain subjective choice? I can't speak for "angels" as to why they chose something. Maybe they wanted to. Maybe they were promised something. Did you want me to go seek out and ask them all?

Look, CDF claimed the devil rebelled against god by rallying 1/3 of the angles. I asked in return, what the devils plan was for heaven, and was concluded (based on the information availiable to me) that he must have balls and charisma. You replied, that this is not necessarily the case and speculated (without giving further evidence/information) that the angels were somehow deceived by the devil or under his spell.

I also asked you how you know the devil was the bad one. Or do you assume this only because he lost?

I asked, more than once, since you seem so well informed about god, devil and heaven, to bring forward more information, but it seems you dont have any. What i wanted was you to substantiate your claims. You were seeingly purely speculating.

Are you assuming I have some special power to go into the past to read minds?

No, i assumed your drug dealer analogy and the underlying assumption of the devils´relation to angels was based on more as "i just pulled this ou tof thin air".

I would suggest that your question is misplaced.  As far as were they stopped from making a choice, it was never implied, so there's really no point unless you can validate some reason why they would need to have been prevented from making a decision.  Again, another misplaced question.  Of course if you can explain the necessity, then that could always be retracted and revisited, but no reason to prematurely on something implied by you.

Im not going to explain anything before you have explained the veracity of your drug dealer analogy, hopefully based on more then 100% conjecture.

The statement about the rebellion would be correct in both past and present tense.  There was a rebellion, as an independent event, and rebellion that continues.

A continuing rebellion, after the devil lost the heavenly war? Is this conjecture or do you have anything to substantiate this claim?
I am asking again: What is the devil trying to gain? What is his *program*? Before i get all judgemental i would like to hvae more background information.

So far it seems like you're more interested in claiming fallacies than actually engaging material objectively.

Didnt i already tell you that i never mentioned fallacies? Didnt i already tell you that your MO is to double down when being called out on BS? Do i have to ask you again where i was talking about fallacies (or even logic)?

I'm guessing this is a trend with you when you discuss things with people who think differently.  I could be wrong, but I guess time will tell.  It's usually better to explore things with objectivity if you want to have productive dialogue though, so something to consider. Cheers.

Ok, then start by introducing stuff to substantiate your claims about heaven, god and the devil, and stop claiming i am talking about fallacies, when i clearly am not.