DNA Code Indicates Creator

[MissRowy]

False. Go to court with a few hundred eyewitnesses today and see if they matter.

Actually eyewitness accounts wouldn't stand up in court. Because its subjective evidence which is based on peoples feelings and their opinion. If they had actual objective evidence then they might have a chance to prove that these things happened.

 

[xianghua]

Which leaves us with a rather useless tautology and renders the enter argument for design completely moot.

here is an interesting example: if someone will create a robot that it will be identical to a human. is this kind of robot will be evidence for design or a natural process?

 

[Strathos]

here is an interesting example: if someone will create a robot that it will be identical to a human. is this kind of robot will be evidence for design or a natural process?

Did they create said robot with a genetic history that shows millions of years of evolution, complete with a worldwide fossil record showing ancestral forms of said robot that match up to the genetic history, and the genetic history of an an entire ecosystem of robots showing that they all descended from a common ancestor?

 

[xianghua]

Did they create said robot with a genetic history that shows millions of years of evolution, complete with a worldwide fossil record showing ancestral forms of said robot that match up to the genetic history, and the genetic history of an an entire ecosystem of robots showing that they all descended from a common ancestor?

its depend about what you consider as "genetic history that shows millions of years of evolution". even so it will not prove a natural process but a design. because any kind of a walking robot is evidence for design.

 

[Strathos]

its depend about what you consider as "genetic history that shows millions of years of evolution". even so it will not prove a natural process but a design. because any kind of a walking robot is evidence for design.

What about designing the rules that lead to a natural process?

 

[dad]

Prove it. I or you could be a crazy person sitting in an asylum and all this is in our head, or we are plugged in to the Matrix. You should let philosophers know that you apparently found the solution to hard solipsism.

There would still be history books, and if you were too far gone to read them, others still could.

Give me your most convincing prophesy and I can tell you why its not a prophesy or how it failed.

How about Jesus predicting the temple that took 80 years to build would be destroyed and not a stone left standing upon another?

How do you rule out that you aren't under the influence of an evil spirit?

I trust Jesus will answer the door when they come a knocking.

We have no eyewitness accounts in the New Testament.

No? So John never was an apostle?

What we have is other people writing about eyewitnesses and not the eyewitnesses themselves.

So who wrote John, Peter? Judas?

Also most New Testament scholars date the earliest writings between 70-150 AD.

The writings were widespread and read in churches and etc before that. When they got bound together and published or made into a fancy book is not really all that important.

 

[xianghua]

What about designing the rules that lead to a natural process?

to design something that its not design?

 

[dad]

Actually eyewitness accounts wouldn't stand up in court. Because its subjective evidence which is based on peoples feelings and their opinion. If they had actual objective evidence then they might have a chance to prove that these things happened.

If there were twelve witnesses to a guy driving a truck through a crowd, that would not matter?

 

[Skreeper]

There would still be history books, and if you were too far gone to read them, others still could.

The existence of such books could still all be part of the fantasy in your head.

How about Jesus predicting the temple that took 80 years to build would be destroyed and not a stone left standing upon another?

Can you give me chapter and verse so I can look it up?

I trust Jesus will answer the door when they come a knocking.

Are you saying a demon or Satan is incapable of mimicking the appearance of Jesus? How can you be sure you are not being deceived when your book tells us we are all flawed human beings?

No? So John never was an apostle?

The Gospel of John is anonymous. We have no idea who the author really was.

So who wrote John, Peter? Judas?

As I already said above: The Gospel of John is anonymous, the Gospel of Peter is pseudepigraphical and the Gospel of Judas is most likely the work of second century Christians and not Judas.

 

[Strathos]

to design something that its not design?

It is. It's just a matter of the specifics of how it was done.

 

[xianghua]

It is. It's just a matter of the specifics of how it was done.

ok. but why to believe in evolution if we cant test it and when we have evidence against it?

 

[Jimmy D]

ok. but why to believe in evolution if we cant test it and when we have evidence against it?

We don't "believe in it", we observe it. You have zero evidence against it, unless I've missed something.

 

[Ophiolite]

ok. but why to believe in evolution if we cant test it and when we have evidence against it?

The balance of evidence for versus the evidence against is overwhelmingly in favour of the evidence for. Consequently I accept evolution as the best explanation by far for the nature and diversity of the biosphere.

Now, of course, the quality of the evidence is as important as the quantity. It would only take one piece of superlative quality to falsify evolution. What do you think is the evidence against that comes closest to achieving that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Jesus said stuff.

So claims the words of men.

 

[Loudmouth]

its depend about what you consider as "genetic history that shows millions of years of evolution". even so it will not prove a natural process but a design. because any kind of a walking robot is evidence for design.

You would have to created false evidence of evolution in order for your scenario to work. You would have to plant fossils, insert junk DNA to match other species, and so forth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not about creation issues. However, they are pretty true when it comes to making a better toilet tissue for us.

No, sience isn't the practice of making toilet paper either.

Jesus said the words of God were the words He gave through men. So it is the very same thing in this case because He made it so.

Those are again the words of men.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

False. Go to court with a few hundred eyewitnesses today and see if they matter.

A single piece of empirical evidence saying otherwise, will trump hundreds of "testimonies".

Take a look: The Cases & Exoneree Profiles - Innocence Project

The vast majority of those people were convicted based on "eyewitness testimony".

Empirical evidence trumps "testimony". Every. Single. Time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

its depend about what you consider as "genetic history that shows millions of years of evolution".

In context of this topic, that can mean only one thing and thus isn't ambigous at all...

even so it will not prove a natural process but a design.

It would not.

because any kind of a walking robot is evidence for design.

You'ld first have to show it to be a robot.
If it is indistinguishable from a life form that is the result of a natural process, how could you tell the difference?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If there were twelve witnesses to a guy driving a truck through a crowd, that would not matter?

None of those 12 witnesses would be able to know if the truck driver did it on purpose, was drunk, was having a seizure, or if the breaks of the truck failed, etc...

 

[xianghua]

It would only take one piece of superlative quality to falsify evolution. What do you think is the evidence against that comes closest to achieving that?

ok. lets start with the suppose test to falsified evolution (according to evolutionists criteria like prof dawkins). do you agree that one fossil in the wrong place will falsified evolution? (for example a monkey with a dino fossil).