DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Yes, max, I have a fact bias and an agenda for laughing at morons who need to learn new tricks....and?



Did you have something to add, to the above, that you quoted?  Are you under the impression that we uncritically accept the claims made by despots and self aggrandizers of centuries past?

When the old tricks still work remember...

If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it.

Also, who is "we?"  You can accept whatever you choose to accept on whatever basis you feel like accepting it. It's valid to you and whoever else you can convince that it is the right choice.

[The Grand Nudger]

You have absolutely nothing to say, I take it?  "We" refers to those people who understand that hagiography is an unreliable narrator of history. Would you like to argue yourself into a corner with all of the worlds Dear Leaders for no point other than to be a low rent troll? It wouldn't lower my opinion of you, ofc..that's not actually possible...but it seems like you might not want to present yourself as a babbling moron incapable of knowing anything about..well..anything.

After all, if Caeser tells us that he personally dispatched 300 7 foot tall barbarians wielding axes larger than a man in a single hour..who are we to call bullshit, right?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You have absolutely nothing to say, I take it?  "We" refers to those people who understand that hagiography is an unreliable narrator of history.   Would you like to argue yourself into a corner with all of the worlds Dear Leaders for no point other than to be a low rent troll?  It wouldn't lower my opinion of you, ofc..that's not actually possible...but it seems like you might not want to present yourself as a babbling moron incapable of knowing anything about..well..anything.

After all, if Caeser tells us that he personally dispatched 300 7 foot tall barbarians wielding axes larger than a man in a single hour..who are we to call bullshit, right?

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.

[Bucky Ball]

You did not. You CLAIM that Genesis references something scholars KNOW was not the understanding of what "prophesy" and it was is a fail.
Re-referencing Genesis is bogus. You must reference a recognized scholar of Archaic Hebrew for a reference to be valid. You don't seem to be very capable in this debate thing. You also seem to have very very little background in the Bible or Hebrew culture.

https://infidels.org/library/modern/robe...html#proof

"Whence the Proof from Prophecy?
In all this, there is nothing of the apologetical appeal to public, long-standing messianic claims. Matthew was not aiming at the same thing subsequent Christian apologists were. Why the change? Why did apologists, ancient (I would include Luke) and modern, shift over to an incredible appeal to Old Testament proof texts as if the Christian reinterpretation represented the original intentions of the prophets to predict Jesus? I think it is because very shortly, the vast majority of Christians, and Christian scholars, were Greek-speaking Gentiles who were accustomed to reading only the Greek Septuagint and reading it with only a Christian application in mind. They viewed the Old Testament dispensation simply as the time of waiting for the Christ, and the Old Testament characters as pretty much "Christians before Christ" (to borrow Justin Martyr's term for Socrates and other Greek spokesmen for the Logos). They read the Old Testament anachronistically, made it into a Christian book, and began to suppose that Isaiah had nothing in mind other than predicting Jesus Christ. Here and there one catches an early Christian voice protesting that the Old Testament author could not have had Jesus in mind, e.g., Marcion of Pontus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, who held out for a literal, non-messianic reading of most or all of the Old Testament, but these, obviously, are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Even if most did read the Old Testament as a Christian document even on the surface, Christian hermeneutics did not theoretically demand this. Most exegetes held in common with Origen some sort of multi-sense hermeneutic, whereby the surface, literal sense was often not even the most important one. One could still find the messianic sense in one of these esoteric levels of meaning, and many of the supposed "messianic" predictions that Hal Lindsay and others today seem to take as the surface meaning were relegated to secondary, non-literal interpretations by the ancients. Where the crisis really came was at the time of the Protestant Reformation, when to rule out Catholic appeals to non-literal meanings on behalf of the papacy or the sale of indulgences, Martin Luther rejected, on principle, any but the straightforward, surface sense of any text as recoverable by means of the grammatico-historical method. At the same time, it did not occur to him to break with traditional appeals to Old Testament prophecy to prove that Christians were right and Jews were wrong about Jesus. This is what created the intolerable bind in which fundamentalist apologists find themselves in today (though they seem oblivious to the difficulty, one suspects because they share the same merely opportunistic interest that ancient Christians had in the Old Testament as a source of Christian proof texts)."

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.

---

You have absolutely nothing to say, I take it?  "We" refers to those people who understand that hagiography is an unreliable narrator of history.   Would you like to argue yourself into a corner with all of the worlds Dear Leaders for no point other than to be a low rent troll?  It wouldn't lower my opinion of you, ofc..that's not actually possible...but it seems like you might not want to present yourself as a babbling moron incapable of knowing anything about..well..anything.

After all, if Caeser tells us that he personally dispatched 300 7 foot tall barbarians wielding axes larger than a man in a single hour..who are we to call bullshit, right?

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.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

I know the site.  I've used it plenty of times in the past.   Also, what "field" are you referring to?  There's no indication that you are even a part of any "field" to be considered an authority in it.  I'm just supposed to assume you have some expertise in something because you are projecting it?  Nope, not happening with me.

Content isn't the only thing that matters.  If the content is flawed, then why use it?

Way over my head?  How so?  Like I said, I'll gladly stand in front of an unbiased panel with you present, and you are welcome to do your best to try and invalidate me.  Nonsensical assertions mean jack.

[Bucky Ball]

I know the site.  I've used it plenty of times in the past.   Also, what "field" are you referring to?  There's no indication that you are even a part of any "field" to be considered an authority in it.  I'm just supposed to assume you have some expertise in something because you are projecting it?  Nope, not happening with me.

Content isn't the only thing that matters.  If the content is flawed, then why use it?

Way over my head?  How so?  Like I said, I'll gladly stand in front of an unbiased panel with you present, and you are welcome to do your best to try and invalidate me.  Nonsensical assertions mean jack.

If the content is flawed , and you are educated in the subject, then you can easily show what's wrong with the content. Obviously you couldn't. You dodged the matter.

How so "over your head" ... ?
Many things ... your idiotic (so-called) "reference" for one. The Protevangelium (Genesis 3:14-15), is not a prophesy ... it does not come from a prophet, (in the literary sense). 
(Of course no one says any more that Moses wrote the Pentateuch .. at least scholars don't). The words are spoken by the god. An "evangelium" is a Greek translation for the "Good News", thus it would be a "gospel", not a prophesy. Your reference is not only NOT a reference, but irrelevant to the discussion, (of prophesy). Also the entire matter of "protevangelium" is a CHRISTIAN concept from AFTER the turn of millenium. It's NOT a Hebrew idea ... and the discussion of "prophesy" in the OLD TESTAMENT has nothing to do with what may have been considered such by the NEW Testament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protevangelium
The Protevangelium cannot be a reference to a "Christian" messiah ... Genesis is a work of Hebrew literature, and they did not buy into what Christians turned the concept into.
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/art...an-claims/

The role of a prophet in Hebrew culture was NOT to "tell the future".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophet#Judaism
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article...nt-israel/

[The Grand Nudger]

You have absolutely nothing to say, I take it?  "We" refers to those people who understand that hagiography is an unreliable narrator of history.   Would you like to argue yourself into a corner with all of the worlds Dear Leaders for no point other than to be a low rent troll?  It wouldn't lower my opinion of you, ofc..that's not actually possible...but it seems like you might not want to present yourself as a babbling moron incapable of knowing anything about..well..anything.

After all, if Caeser tells us that he personally dispatched 300 7 foot tall barbarians wielding axes larger than a man in a single hour..who are we to call bullshit, right?

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.

Atheism hasn't thrived in all of the history of humankind...wtf are you talking about...do you even know? Moreover..what does anything you quoted have to do with your rejoinder? Do you even know that...or was it just something you felt compelled to type?

What "saints' do you think atheism has...or, if you prefer, what relationship could atheism possibly have to the very concept of saints?

All of the above..rhetorical..I know that you're an idiot..I don't expect an answer.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

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.

Atheism hasn't thrived in all of the history of humankind...wtf are you talking about...do you even know?  Moreover..what does anything you quoted have to do with your rejoinder?  Do you even know that...or was it just something you felt compelled to type?

What "saints' do you think atheism has...or, if you prefer, what relationship could atheism possibly have to the very concept of saints?

All of the above..rhetorical..I know that you're an idiot..I don't expect an answer.

Guess you've never heard of China. 

As far as "saints", maybe look at some of your atheist icons and what they're saying.  Seems like you would be more likely to listen to them than me anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

[CDF47]

At work.

There are plenty of biochemists, geneticists, other scientists that believe in a creator.

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?

---

More evidence for the exodus:

https://www.christianheadlines.com/blog/...found.html

---

You probably missed the "may" bit in the article. It has not yet been investigated yet so it is not yet evidence for the exodus.
Perhaps that will change, but I think not.
Like all those "we found the ark" stories, they never found the ark. Its Christian click bait.

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.

---

I didn't say anything false.  DNA has information bearing properties which cannot be explained by the atheist worldview.  From there turn to theology.

You keep claiming this, but when asked for proof, you change the subject.  What proof do you have that DNA couldn't have evolved through natural means and thus be explained by materialism.  Evidence or shut the fuck up.

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.

---

You keep claiming this, but when asked for proof, you change the subject.  What proof do you have that DNA couldn't have evolved through natural means and thus be explained by materialism.  Evidence or shut the fuck up.

I thought we couldn't prove a negative...
CDF's problem is that his argument is one of incredulity... Or lack of understanding of the mechanisms that drive what we call evolution.

I'd advise CDF to read an introductory book, perhaps Dawkins' Selfish Gene.

I appreciate the reference to the book.  Not sure I will have time to read about it.  I have a list of books I'd like to read and this would just be another one on a long list.