DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[The Grand Nudger]

At work.


Yet more rhetoric and equivocation.

Prof Schweitzer is a well known professed Catholic who must constantly rebuke the Creationists who routinely lie and misrepresent her works.

What do they do to lie about her works?

That's a wonderful question...but moreso for creationists like yourself..don't you think?

The ark may have been found by the CIA decades ago but I am not going to get into that debate.  I saw the may bit in the article.

.................

The evidence is that the information is not only extremely complex (like machine code but way more complex) it is also functional (like machine code).  It encodes the construct of proteins in the cell.  See the videos in my signature.

So? If what you mean..properly..by "it must have been poofed into existence by a wizard" is...actually "it's complex and functional"...well, then no one says otherwise. It is complex, and functional...but since we've seen how complex and functional things can arise from simple circumstances..how do you go from "it's complex and functional" to "goddidit!"...?

[CDF47]

I do not believe a blind process could have created that functional information and the molecular machines in the cell.

Your incredulity is oddly selective.  You just can't believe in organic chemistry...but no matter what, you will believe that a wizard played in the mud.

I believe the Creator created everything based on all the evidence before me.

---

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

Before I finish the first sentence of your "source" it shows itself to be worse than shit (at least you can use shit as fertiliser), it calls Will Durant early on "non-christian".  Nothing in his writing or his life suggests that he ever abandoned christianity.  Secondly they are using a source from 1944, back in a period when "biblical history" was still dominated by religious ministers and the bible was taken as unquestioned truth.  Archaeology since then has completely destroyed the myth of biblical historicity such that no reliable or well informed historian accepts any of the stories contained therein without significant corroborating evidence.

Then it mentions the bible as evidence. As I said above, the bible is not evidence it is the claim.  If all we had of Caesar were his Gallic Wars there would be huge historical debate over his existence with many (if not most) historians being rightly sceptical of his existence.  But we don't just have one book on his life, we have corroborating archaeological evidence showing the book was right in many of its particulars, independent evidence from writings of contemporaries, evidence of his (near) descendants, the Julio-Claudian clan which comprised the first ruling dynasty of the Empire and so on.  All that is lacking for Jesus.

Then the article goes on to call John Crossan a "sceptic of Jesus", which is a complete fabrication.  Being a fellow Irishman I am aware of Crossan's work and his whole life has been spent in catholic apologetics.  Far from being a sceptic, Crossan is an uncritical cheerleader for Jesus.

The next "authority" is Habermas, a man so authorative and truthful that if he told you it was raining you would be forced to stick your head out the window to make sure.  He is the very definition of "liar for Jesus" and not one single thing he has ever said can be taken on its own merits.  And then the article goes on to list a number of fraudulent mentions of Jesus (Tacitus as I mentioned above, of which the only mention of Jesus comes from an 11th century manuscript which has been deliberately altered and Josephus which has been acknowledged by all but the most egregious of liars, cf Habermas as being a fraud perpetrated by Eusebius because he had no actual historical records for Jesus, despite having access to significant Roman records of that period later destroyed by the churches of Rome and Constantinople) or much later figures such as Pliny writing in the 190's CE.  Mara bar Serapion, far from being an acknowledger of Jesus was a pagan of whom later christian writers altered his letters to add a patina of respectability and authenticity to their budding religion.

And the list of christian writers is even worse,  first of all they are all 2nd or 3rd century writers, second of all they had a vested interest in perpetuating the scam, as they were profiting from it.

And finally the salmonella cherry on this shit sundae "By first century standards, this is terrific documentation." when most of what has been documented has either been later writings by vested interests or  earlier works to significantly altered to insert christianity into a period when it did not exist.  What little "evidence" that remains from the piece is the bible itself which is neither historically reliable, nor a primary source that it and the apologists claim of it, nor a depiction of any real or possible series of events.

Your whole premise is built on a foundation of shit, and ready to collapse like a house of cards built by a toddler.  Do not try to bullshit me again, you failure.

You just despise the work because it shows all the evidence for the historical Jesus.

---

We are extremely critical of the purported historical claims made in a text with little to no corroboration, by people with known biases and agendas.  No one actually believes the shit that roman emperors wrote word for word, for example.

.............?

I don't believe all the BS I hear either from the lying media to the government's cover-ups and deceptions.

---

infidels.org?  Oh, because that's a completely objective site?  No thanks.  Might as well send me a link to a scientology site.  May get bits and pieces of facts, but too much nonsense to sift through.

Either I "did" or "did not" provide a reference in my statement, as per your accusation that "I did not."  If you did not believe the reference was sufficient for your understanding, then you could've asked for more, but that doesn't mean I didn't provide a reference.   Your disapproval of said reference is a separate issue though.

If I said you did not provide a reference in your last post, you would probably tell me that I was wrong because you cited a link to infidels.org.  My disapproval of said site as a source is a separate issue.

And with that....DERP!

Thanks for demonstrating yet again, you are incompetent to discuss anything in the field. The site is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that matters is the content ... which you obviously lack the background to discuss. IF you did have a background and education in the field, you COULD have presented references that refute what I said about prophesy. You didn't ... and by that proved you are in this WAY over your head.

---

Which is why it's a good idea to disregard atheism.  Whenever it has thrived, millions died because of your "saints" and what they asserted to be correct.

Would this be like Germany, a Christian nation which allowed National Socialism to come to power ?
Or maybe like Russia, also a Christian (Orthodox) nation which allowed the rise of Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism ?
What "millions" are you talking about ?
Or maybe the Christian nation of Rwanda ? Sure did *them* a lot of good.
You're so cute ... with these cheap little re-tread theist thingies.
Back to your prayers ... bozo.

No, like the Christian nation like the United States which has separation of church and state.

---

What do they do to lie about her works?

That's a wonderful question...but moreso for creationists like yourself..don't you think?

The ark may have been found by the CIA decades ago but I am not going to get into that debate.  I saw the may bit in the article.

.................

The evidence is that the information is not only extremely complex (like machine code but way more complex) it is also functional (like machine code).  It encodes the construct of proteins in the cell.  See the videos in my signature.

So?  If what you mean..properly..by "it must have been poofed into existence by a wizard" is...actually "it's complex and functional"...well, then no one says otherwise.  It is complex, and functional...but since we've seen how complex and functional things can arise from simple circumstances..how do you go from "it's complex and functional" to "goddidit!"...?

Because it must have taken a mind to create the complexity and functionality of this machine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your incredulity is oddly selective.  You just can't believe in organic chemistry...but no matter what, you will believe that a wizard played in the mud.

I believe the Creator created everything based on all the evidence before me.

A more blatant lie couldn't be offered.

You have.....in this very thread..referred to all other things before you that contradict that myth as propaganda. So..nah, ya dunce, you do';t believe that based on all the evidence before you, you don't believe that based on -any- evidence before you.  You believe that -in spite- of that evidence before you and with no evidence to that effect.

---

We are extremely critical of the purported historical claims made in a text with little to no corroboration, by people with known biases and agendas.  No one actually believes the shit that roman emperors wrote word for word, for example.

.............?

I don't believe all the BS I hear either from the lying media to the government's cover-ups and deceptions.

-but you do believe that a wizard played in the mud.  Go figure.  : shrugs :

---

That's a wonderful question...but moreso for creationists like yourself..don't you think?

.................

So?  If what you mean..properly..by "it must have been poofed into existence by a wizard" is...actually "it's complex and functional"...well, then no one says otherwise.  It is complex, and functional...but since we've seen how complex and functional things can arise from simple circumstances..how do you go from "it's complex and functional" to "goddidit!"...?

Because it must have taken a mind to create the complexity and functionality of this machine.

-and yet we know that it doesn't.

Your beliefs are fact free, contradict facts, and the factual nature of any of them isn't even important to you. Do you expect to be taken seriously after all these many pages? Why? You;re an ignorant loon....at best. A liar for christ, at worst. It's up to you to decide which of those you want to be...and the former can be fixed..even though the latter probably can't.....and neither is required to be a good christian.

So..you know, sort your shit out and get back to me.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

China has a deep history of belief, nutbar.  You should familiarize yourself with their magic books, they're pretty cool.

They have a deep history of atheism, and they still do. 

I don't need any magic books.  Not into Harry Potter and the like.  If it's your thing, then more power to you.

[The Grand Nudger]

What on earth made you think that, lol?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What on earth made you think that, lol?

You said "magic books", so I assume you're talking about Harry Potter or something similar that emphasizes magic books.

[The Grand Nudger]

IOW, you're trolling, again. Lemme guess, you did actually know that there was such a thing as chinese myths and god beliefs..but you just -had- to type some silly shit. Right?

LOL...go fuck yourself...why are you still here?

[CDF47]

I believe the Creator created everything based on all the evidence before me.

A more blatant lie couldn't be offered.

You have.....in this very thread..referred to all other things before you that contradict that myth as propaganda. So..nah, ya dunce, you do';t believe that based on all the evidence before you, you don't believe that based on -any- evidence before you.  You believe that -in spite- of that evidence before you and with no evidence to that effect.

---

I don't believe all the BS I hear either from the lying media to the government's cover-ups and deceptions.

-but you do believe that a wizard played in the mud.  Go figure.  : shrugs :

---

That's a wonderful question...but moreso for creationists like yourself..don't you think?

.................

Because it must have taken a mind to create the complexity and functionality of this machine.

-and yet we know that it doesn't.

Your beliefs are fact free, contradict facts, and the factual nature of any of them isn't even important to you.  Do you expect to be taken seriously after all these many pages?  Why?  You;re an ignorant loon....at best.  A liar for christ, at worst.  It's up to you to decide which of those you want to be...and the former can be fixed..even though the latter probably can't.....and neither is required to be a good christian.

So..you know, sort your shit out and get back to me.

I am a truth seeker and I speak the truth.  I am not a liar.

[The Grand Nudger]

You might want to consider the possibility of your having been lied to, and then faithfully repeating those lies as though they were truth...for no reason other than your being a selectively credulous loon.

No that you need to be..I'll stress that again. You don't actuallyhave to be a flaming moron to be a christian...that's just a personal choice that you make.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

IOW, you're trolling, again. Lemme guess, you did actually know that there was such a thing as chinese myths and god beliefs..but you just -had- to type some silly shit.  Right?

LOL...go fuck yourself...why are you still here?

China is very much atheistic.  Agree or disagree?  That's what we're discussing.  Not Chinese myths and what not.