DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[CDF47]

I would think there were some socialists and communists on this site to complain to being that it is an atheist site and all.

That's because you're remarkably ignorant, apparently about pretty much everything.

---

Christians are persecuted as well.  I think the suicide problem is more prominent in atheists mainly due to lack of hope and due to despair.

Then you would expect atheists to be more likely to commit suicide in countries where they're a bigger portion of the population, wouldn't you?

Generally more with the atheist belief than the country they are from.

[Mister Agenda]

That's because you're remarkably ignorant, apparently about pretty much everything.

---

Then you would expect atheists to be more likely to commit suicide in countries where they're a bigger portion of the population, wouldn't you?

Generally more with the atheist belief than the country they are from.

As it turns out, how many Christians or Muslims are surrounding them is a major factor in the suicide rate of atheists. That's because, contrary to Jesus, most of his followers are not in any way recognizable by their 'love'. Actually, people who call themselves Christians seem to have about as many people 'known by their love' as any other large group. Saying you're a follower of Jesus seems to have no impact at all, statistically.

And countries with high percentages of atheists where it wasn't state-imposed by communists have a much lower murder rate than countries with the most Christians or Muslims. I'll take a 5% higher rate of suicide in return for an 80% lower chance of being murdered any day.

What is it about Christianity that makes so many of them murderous? Just kidding, unlike you, I know when it's too early to jump from correlation to causation.

---

I always find it interesting that supposedly Jesus had advice for proselytizing, but we rarely have Jesus visitors who follow it. Rather than advising them to keep beating their heads against the heathens, he advised them to move on if they weren't received well. Not that I want CDF to leave the forum, but there are other topics he can try, and not every thread has to be a battle between atheists and believers, there are areas where we can agree, or at least both sides can get the other person's point of view.

[CDF47]

Generally more with the atheist belief than the country they are from.

As it turns out, how many Christians or Muslims are surrounding them is a major factor in the suicide rate of atheists. That's because, contrary to Jesus, most of his followers are not in any way recognizable by their 'love'. Actually, people who call themselves Christians seem to have about as many people 'known by their love' as any other large group. Saying you're a follower of Jesus seems to have no impact at all, statistically.

And countries with high percentages of atheists where it wasn't state-imposed by communists have a much lower murder rate than countries with the most Christians or Muslims. I'll take a 5% higher rate of suicide in return for an 80% lower chance of being murdered any day.

What is it about Christianity that makes so many of them murderous? Just kidding, unlike you, I know when it's too early to jump from correlation to causation.

---

I always find it interesting that supposedly Jesus had advice for proselytizing, but we rarely have Jesus visitors who follow it. Rather than advising them to keep beating their heads against the heathens, he advised them to move on if they weren't received well. Not that I want CDF to leave the forum, but there are other topics he can try, and not every thread has to be a battle between atheists and believers, there are areas where we can agree, or at least both sides can get the other person's point of view.

That sounds good to me, I am interested in discussing other topics on the forum.  This one has just consumed so much of my time though.

[sdelsolray]

You know DNA is in EVERY cell, not just blood, right? The blood thing to the Hebrews was a result of mundane observation: if you bleed too much, you die. Nothing to do with DNA.

Slight correction.  Mature red blood cells contain no DNA.  Neither do platelet cells (which are basically cell fragments).  The only cells with DNA in mammalian blood are white blood cells, which make up about 1% of the blood's volume.  The remaining component in blood, plasma, is not made up of cells.

[The Grand Nudger]

That sounds good to me, I am interested in discussing other topics on the forum.  This one has just consumed so much of my time though.

Didn;t have to, could have been the shortest convo ever:

"Hi, I was led to believe that ID was super legit and proved god, what do you guys think?"

Nope, ID is a failed hypothesis and nothing to do with any god if any god exists.

"Well I;ll be damned, thanks for helping me out guys..I;ll go and sin no more!"

You;re welcome.

.................but nooooooooo, lol.

[Anomalocaris]

That sounds good to me, I am interested in discussing other topics on the forum.  This one has just consumed so much of my time though.

Didn;t have to, could have been the shortest convo ever:

"Hi, I was led to believe that ID was super legit and proved god, what do you guys think?"

Nope, ID is a failed hypothesis and nothing to do with any god if any god exists.

"Well I;ll be damned, thanks for helping me out guys..I;ll go and sin no more!"

You;re welcome.

.................but nooooooooo, lol.

In what way does ID qualify as a hypothesis? What does it predict that is both unique and falsifiable?

[The Grand Nudger]

Alot, even though it;s proponents try to avoid doing so.  It predicted that we would not find intermediate steps were we do, and contends that some observed things x would be impossible, and that unrelated organisms would have identical code and function from that code.  That was always the problem...even though they didn;t want to -do- science, they wanted to give their absurd beliefs the patina of science, and so accidentally screwed the pooch.

I won;t link their silly website, but if you look it up..you'll find that they still have their falsified predictions up for all the world to see. They know their target market won;t look elsewhere.

[Anomalocaris]

Alot, even though it;s proponents try to avoid doing so.  It predicted that we would not find intermediate steps were we do, and contends that some observed things x would be impossible, and that unrelated organisms would have identical code and function from that code.  That was always the problem...even though they didn;t want to -do- science, they wanted to give their absurd beliefs the patina of science, and so accidentally screwed the pooch.

I won;t link their silly website, but if you look it up..you'll find that they still have their falsified predictions up for all the world to see.  They know their target market won;t look elsewhere.

Are those unique predictions even if they had not been falsified?

A theory of evolution that postulate speciation to be rapid, but species then remain stable for a long time, would also predict intermediate forms would be rare and hard to find. Different organisms having largely similar genetic code follows naturally from evolution of all flavors. Irreducible complexity can not prove irreducibility and depends on lack of sufficient imagination to conceive of plausible reduction.

There must be some prize for coming up with a “theory” that is not even wrong, and yet can still be proven wrong so trivially and repeatedly.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are those unique predictions even if they had not been falsified?

A theory of evolution that postulate speciation to be rapid, but species then remain stable for a long time, would also predict intermediate forms would be rare and hard to find.   Different organisms having largely similar genetic code follows naturally from evolution of all flavors.   Irreducible complexity can not prove irreducibility and depends on lack of sufficient imagination to conceive of plausible reduction.

There must be some prize for coming up with a “theory” that is not even wrong,  and yet can still be proven wrong so trivially and repeatedly.

ID didnt contend that they would be rare or hard to find.  It contended that they would be non-existent.  Turns out they were wrong.  Honestly, it had already turned out that they were wrong..but, again, they didn;t want to -do- science, they just needed it to sound sciencey.  Irredicible complexity, for it;s part, was a specific enough proposition to be shown specifically false.

They didn;t mean to make it falsifiable, it;s just really hard to devise a genuinely untestable proposition. In any case, ID was never a theory, it never rose higher than a poorly formed hypothesis.

[Anomalocaris]

Are those unique predictions even if they had not been falsified?

A theory of evolution that postulate speciation to be rapid, but species then remain stable for a long time, would also predict intermediate forms would be rare and hard to find.   Different organisms having largely similar genetic code follows naturally from evolution of all flavors.   Irreducible complexity can not prove irreducibility and depends on lack of sufficient imagination to conceive of plausible reduction.

There must be some prize for coming up with a “theory” that is not even wrong,  and yet can still be proven wrong so trivially and repeatedly.

ID didnt contend that they would be rare or hard to find.  It contended that they would be non-existent.  Turns out they were wrong.  Honestly, it had already turned out that they were wrong..but, again, they didn;t want to -do- science, they just needed it to sound sciencey.  Irredicible complexity, for it;s part, was a specific enough proposition to be shown specifically false.

They didn;t mean to make it falsifiable, it;s just really hard to devise a genuinely untestable proposition.  In any case, ID was never a theory, it never rose higher than a poorly formed hypothesis.

How is nonexistence of things testable except through difficulty in finding them?