DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Silver]

Science is not God to me. God is God to me. Science is an everchanging field. 
Thousands of scientific theories have been proven wrong throughout history. 
One example from the 80s and 90s- Lowfat dieting was based on a huge scientific study followed up by numerous other studies done by scientists all over the world. Doctors prescribed it to patients for decades and guess what? They were wrong. But scientists swore it was fact at that time. Now we know cholesterol isn't all bad and fat is not even bad for us (in fact we need it for numerous health reasons.) It used to be lower your cholestoral or you'll die of a heart attack, and now we know good cholestoral can actually improve your health. Nothing that was being promoted as healthy back then is even good for us. And that is science for you.

[Everena]

There is no such thing as faith that is not blind.   If it was not blind it wouldn’t need faith.

Your Realization is wrong.

It only seems to you to be time to jump into theology because you are infantile, misguided and lacking in fundamental facility for critical thinking.

Theology never offers any real answers.  Nor can it ever.   It contains no mechanism whatsoever for searching for material truth outside human psychology.   It is all about calculating what lies and crass fiction dovetails best with common human cognitive deficits and thus can must likely be used as unifying element for forming cults.

Here, too, I would have to disagree that faith, blind or not, is an example of infantilism or lack of critical thought.  Underdetermination of theory as well as Quine's radical translation thesis make it clear that even science isn't above adding a little something extra on the top that isn't explicitly required.  The Duhem-Quine thesis also makes clear that a certain kind of holism that is essentially blind is required to draw any scientific conclusion.  From a priori truths to the metaphysics of quantum mechanics interpretations, leaping to unjustified conclusion is not something confined to the lame or underaged, it is part and parcel of what we do.  I think the crux of the matter lies elsewhere than simply focusing on whether the faith is blind or not.

---

Oh and I suppose you are saying that you are so much more intelligent than I am, right? But, if you really were, you would just apply simple logic and realize how obvious it is that God exists. And be specific with your insults. What do you claim I not understand exactly?

The thesis that someone is inferior to you because they differ with you on one or more subjects is fatally flawed, and only a moron would think otherwise.

So, you are calling Anomalocaris and every other insulting atheist in here a moron? And me too for not understanding why you can't apply logic and come to the conclusion that God exists?

---

My experiences: I was pulled out of my body at age 4 during abuse and could see my body being beaten and could feel no pain while I was out of my body. The abuser even freaked out and said "Where did you go?" Then I had the incredible experience with another person where a huge presense of good energy was in the room with us. Like I said, he mentioned it first, which gave me even more confirmation. I have had the making love experience. I have had an unseen force grab my steering wheel and prevent an accident when I fell asleep driving. And I could go on and on with this. I haven't even mentioned any of the signs and I have had like 40 of them that there is no logical explanation for. Anyway, I am beyond convinced and someday you will be too.

OBEs and NDEs are eminently impeachable for reasons that I'd be happy to explain if you so require.  So far I am not seeing any of these allegedly inexplicable and improbable events.  I asked for specifics of such from you, and you have not provided any

Pretend whatever makes you happy and keeps you in your atheist bubble.

[The Grand Nudger]

Science is not God to me. God is God to me. Science is an everchanging field. 
Thousands of scientific theories have been proven wrong throughout history. 
One example from the 80s and 90s- Lowfat dieting was based on a huge scientific study followed up by numerous other studies done by scientists all over the world. Doctors prescribed it to patients for decades and guess what? They were wrong. But scientists swore it was fact at that time. Now we know cholesterol isn't all bad and fat is not even bad for us (in fact we need it for numerous health reasons.) It used to be lower your cholestoral or you'll die of a heart attack, and now we know good cholestoral can actually improve your health. Nothing that was being promoted as healthy back then is even good for us. And that is science for you.

If only theology were as self correcting as science..instead of being wedded forever to it's initial mistake, huh. Your participation in this thread has been a stunning example of this.

[Angrboda]

@Everena:

Oh, and it seems you missed a point that I made concerning your religious experiences as I apparently was still editing while you were responding to my post. Specifically in regard to whether I can understand someone else's experiences, or draw definite conclusions about what and why they occurred. So I'm repeating it here for your consideration.

Oh, and as a parenthetical, I'm not sure what you're claiming by saying that I cannot possibly understand what someone else has experienced.  For you to know that, you would have to know what I have experienced, which if I understand your claim, is something you think is impossible, so the claim itself would be self-refuting.  No, I cannot decide what someone else has experienced or why, but I can estimate the probability that said experience may have mundane underpinnings, so I do not need to know conclusively what or why somebody else experienced something.  As long as I can show that there are more probable explanations for their experience than the one they are giving, then I can establish a strong prima facie case that said person's beliefs are irrational and not to be relied upon as indicators of the truth.

[Everena]

Oh and I suppose you are saying that you are so much more intelligent than I am, right? But, if you really were, you would just apply simple logic and realize how obvious it is that God exists. And be specific with your insults. What do you I not understand exactly?

I really am. And precisely because I am so much smarter than you are and so much better than you at hitting the truth (not in anyway is that even an remotely exceptional attainment by the way),  it is rather conceited and overreaching for the likes of you to attempt to call my shots.  Wouldn’t you say?

Still waiting to find out what you are claiming that I don't understand. And you are definitely not smarter than anyone.

[Anomalocaris]

So, you are calling Anomalocaris and every other insulting atheist in here a moron? And me too for not understand why you can't apply logic and come to the conclusion that God exists?

The difference between you and a cat is the cat is only amusing herself when she chases her own tail.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Science is not God to me. God is God to me. Science is an everchanging field. 
Thousands of scientific theories have been proven wrong throughout history. 
One example from the 80s and 90s- Lowfat dieting was based on a huge scientific study followed up by numerous other studies done by scientists all over the world. Doctors prescribed it to patients for decades and guess what? They were wrong. But scientists swore it was fact at that time. Now we know cholesterol isn't all bad and fat is not even bad for us (in fact we need it for numerous health reasons.) It used to be lower your cholestoral or you'll die of a heart attack, and now we know good cholestoral can actually improve your health. Nothing that was being promoted as healthy back then is even good for us. And that is science for you.

Wrong. Not only do you not understand evolution but you do not understand how science works.

Our understanding has become more refined over time. For example we now know that there is both good and bad cholesterol. We know that there are different types of fats. Some we need (Omega 3 and omega 6). Some we should minimise (saturated fats). And some we need but get too much of in the western diet (e.g. Omega 6).

Scientists don't talk with one voice as a collective. Science is self correcting and that requires dissenting voices. Eventually this leads to refined theories that can't be dissented against because there is too much evidence for it, such as with the theory of evolution.

[The Grand Nudger]

Mazactly.  Most of us here..I think, make no bones about our preference for provisional certifications of accuracy in light of available facts over some thing contended to be true past present and future no matter what information comes to light.

The creations in this thread, however, in their way of handling those facts of speciation..for example..have demonstrated only that they could be driven round on a tour of the entire universe, and every hypothetical alternate dimension..finding no gods present anywhere, and would still insist on the inviolable truth of their existence.

[Everena]

Science is not God to me. God is God to me. Science is an everchanging field. 
Thousands of scientific theories have been proven wrong throughout history. 
One example from the 80s and 90s- Lowfat dieting was based on a huge scientific study followed up by numerous other studies done by scientists all over the world. Doctors prescribed it to patients for decades and guess what? They were wrong. But scientists swore it was fact at that time. Now we know cholesterol isn't all bad and fat is not even bad for us (in fact we need it for numerous health reasons.) It used to be lower your cholestoral or you'll die of a heart attack, and now we know good cholestoral can actually improve your health. Nothing that was being promoted as healthy back then is even good for us. And that is science for you.

Wrong. Not only do you not understand evolution but you do not understand how science works.

Our understanding has become more refined over time. For example we now know that there is both good and bad cholesterol. We know that there are different types of fats. Some we need (Omega 3 and omega 6). Some we should minimise (saturated fats). And some we need but get too much of in the western diet (e.g. Omega 6).

Scientists don't talk with one voice as a collective. Science is self correcting and that requires dissenting voices. Eventually this leads to refined theories that can't be dissented against because there is too much evidence for it, such as with the theory of evolution.

Are you claiming they weren't telling everyone to lower their overall cholesterol in the 80s and 90s? And this was all over the world for decades due to science being absolutely sure it was fact. What we know now, is NOT what we knew then. The scientist who published the first huge world wide study purposely left out huge amounts of information to prove his hypothesis. The other scientists took his word for it and just made a quick buck by saying they had the same results. And people's lives were at stake. And guess how much they cared? You can read about this on the web. And you think I should just blindly trust the "experts"? Well I don't and you shouldn't either but it's your life.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you capable of anything other than the manufacture of straw and professions of blind ignorance? You don't seem like a particularly intelligent design..is why I ask.