DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Peebothuhlu]

*Blinks incredulously*

No, really?

You are saying that.... If a person walks into a Doctor's office/surgery and indicates where they are experiencing pain.
That there is no way for the Doctor to know whether said person is;
 
Being honest.
Being dishonest.
Being incorrect.
Being delusional?

The Doctor has no way of telling any of these states apart?

You do not know based on their statement that the patient has had headaches since yesterday.  The statement could be true, but it is not validated on its own.  It's simply what a single person is claiming.  Maybe it's true or maybe they just want some pain pills.  If you went a told someone, "They've had headaches since yesterday" and you stated it objectively, another person could easily report that the individual is known for trying to dupe doctors to get pain medication.  More correctly, you would state "The patient indicated they were experiencing headaches."  That puts it on the patient.  Why?  Because he stated it subjectively and bears the responsibility of the statement independently.

 So... are going to answer my question?

Or just keep going with your side of the conversation?

Does the Doctor have any way of telling if the patient is;

Being honest.
Being dishonest.
Being incorrect.
Being delusional?

Not at work.

[Gwaithmir]

@ CDF47:

Summary of failures to date:

You have failed to prove DNA was created by an intelligent designer.
You have failed to prove the existence of God.
You have failed to demonstrate that modern evolutionary theory is unreliable.
You have repeatedly conflated science with religion.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your dogmatic, inflexible thinking.
You have repeatedly demonstrated your crass ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
You have failed to prove that the Bible is true.
You have failed to prove the historicity of any biblical prophecies.
You have failed to demonstrate that any of the biblical scholars I referenced above are, in fact, atheists.
You have failed to demonstrate that any of them have an atheist agenda.

Any one here care to add to that list?

I haven't failed at any of those things.  The reason I am speaking of religion is because of the religious implications of the science.

You haven't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. For once, have the intellectual honesty to admit that you have failed---big time. You have repeatedly made claims here which you can't back up with evidence of any kind.

[Amarok]

No the stats are arguable. 

No they really aren't and even if they were it's a fact that most scientists regardless of  religious affiliation accept evolution  and the those who don't are a small minority . Hell  your buddyEveria failed despite here attempt to use "big names " as if science is built on celebrity status and then only to show there ignorance or their dishonesty (seriously instead of reading the peer review literature meeting someone for lunch to explain complex scientific idea's and idiotically weaving conspiracies ) and even her supposed paper debunking macro evolution was written by two scientist\s who wholly accept the theory . 

See the stats I provided earlier in this thread. 

Rubbish 

Plus, it is almost the nature of that business to have an atheist religion almost following Darwin.

The nature of science ? it's history would disagree and science isn't a " business "let alone a religion and no one worships Darwin his idea's have been plenty questioned in mainstream science and some of his idea's even modified .

---

I haven't failed at any of those things.  The reason I am speaking of religion is because of the religious implications of the science.

You and your buddy Evera failed to do both .

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You do not know based on their statement that the patient has had headaches since yesterday.  The statement could be true, but it is not validated on its own.  It's simply what a single person is claiming.  Maybe it's true or maybe they just want some pain pills.  If you went a told someone, "They've had headaches since yesterday" and you stated it objectively, another person could easily report that the individual is known for trying to dupe doctors to get pain medication.  More correctly, you would state "The patient indicated they were experiencing headaches."  That puts it on the patient.  Why?  Because he stated it subjectively and bears the responsibility of the statement independently.

 So... are going to answer my question?

Or just keep going with your side of the conversation?

Does the Doctor have any way of telling if the patient is;

Being honest.
Being dishonest.
Being incorrect.
Being delusional?

Not at work.

We're not adding variables.  We're looking at a single statement to determine if it is subjective.  So based on the statement:

No
No
No
and No

It's just some random John Doe who came off the street and asked to see a doctor.  If you would like to add new variables/dynamics to it, then I would be happy to look at it in whatever context you would like to alter/adjust it to.

[Bucky Ball]

In "SOAP" charting (the format in which a History and Physical is done),
subjective
objective
assessment
plan

the patient's complaint goes under "subjective" ... (and while some notes may include an assessment of "honesty" if there is some sort of "chronic" nature of the complaints, or perhaps drug-seeking is suspected, the complaint is taken at face-value.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

In "SOAP" charting (the format in which a History and Physical is done),
subjective
objective
assessment
plan

the patient's complaint goes under "subjective" ... (and while some notes may include an assessment of "honesty" if there is some sort of "chronic" nature of the complaints, or perhaps drug-seeking is suspected, the complaint is taken at face-value.

I think this is a fair statement/explanation. Sometimes there is a very fine line when talking about something being subjective or objective.

[sdelsolray]

I am not praying for a sign.  I accidentally did before for a friend to show Him the power of the God of Israel and the sky lit up white and blue one summer night.

Note the deep delusion here, folks. CDF47 claims it was accidental. That's funny.

Then again, perhaps he is just making shit up again. He's certainly demonstrated expertise with that tactic.

[Peebothuhlu]

In "SOAP" charting (the format in which a History and Physical is done),
subjective
objective
assessment
plan

the patient's complaint goes under "subjective" ... (and while some notes may include an assessment of "honesty" if there is some sort of "chronic" nature of the complaints, or perhaps drug-seeking is suspected, the complaint is taken at face-value.

 *Nods*

Yes, I understand this.

However my question is: Does the Doctor have a means/method to determin IF said patient's reporting of pain is

A) Something they've made up/Not real/Only in their mind.

OR

B) An actual, physical event.

[Bucky Ball]

In "SOAP" charting (the format in which a History and Physical is done),
subjective
objective
assessment
plan

the patient's complaint goes under "subjective" ... (and while some notes may include an assessment of "honesty" if there is some sort of "chronic" nature of the complaints, or perhaps drug-seeking is suspected, the complaint is taken at face-value.

 *Nods*

Yes, I understand this.

However my question is: Does the Doctor have a means/method to determin IF said patient's reporting of pain is

A) Something they've made up/Not real/Only in their mind.

OR

B) An actual, physical event.

Technically there possibly are ways, but practically speaking, probably not.

[downbeatplumb]

No the stats are arguable.  See the stats I provided earlier in this thread.  Plus, it is almost the nature of that business to have an atheist religion almost following Darwin.

Atheism is not a religion ... IF you say it is, you have no respect for your own, comparing atheism to your own religion.
The stats are not arguable, and your argument is circular and you DEFEAT your own point. IF scientists reject your crap, than you have to STOP using the scientist argument.

Wrong.  There was the fall of man.  We are designed to live, decay, and die and be reborn into perfect bodies.

You have not one shred of evidence for any reality other than the one we know when things were "perfect".
If man does something, it's irrelevant to creation.

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.