DNA Code Indicates Creator

[quatona]

Yes it is when my assumption is they don't know!

Except we were talking about these assumptions of yours:

I am assuming that life was different, and life processes. We lived @ 1000 yrs. Trees grew in weeks. Animals evolved lightning fast compared to now. People could marry relatives. Etc. So the genetics had to be different! I assume the fundamental forces like the nuclear forces, and forces that control atoms were different.​

 

[Skreeper]

Yes, of course we can. Science needs solid evidence of it's foundational premise of a same nature in the past. End of story.

I don't know on what planet you live but here on earth your reasoning is considered flawed and fallacious. When we don't have an explanation for something that doesn't mean whatever the Bible says about it is correct by default.

You actually have to demonstrate the truth of your claims.

 

[dad]

Except we were talking about these assumptions of yours:

I am assuming that life was different, and life processes. We lived @ 1000 yrs. Trees grew in weeks. Animals evolved lightning fast compared to now. People could marry relatives. Etc. So the genetics had to be different! I assume the fundamental forces like the nuclear forces, and forces that control atoms were different.​

Science assumes they were the same. To make that a valid supposition and belief you need to solidly support it. Here. Now.

Others will continue to assume God is very very right, and have no need to try to use sillyscience to prove it. They know fake news origin sciences could not support their way out of a brown paper bag.

 

[dad]

I don't know on what planet you live but here on earth your reasoning is considered flawed and fallacious. When we don't have an explanation for something that doesn't mean whatever the Bible says about it is correct by default.

You actually have to demonstrate the truth of your claims.

No one needs you to admit or know the bible is right, just to admit you have belief and don't know. The rest will sort itself out! In school, I can just hear teachers start to tell kids 'they really do not know what they are talking about, science is actually just belief after all, and you can pick whatever belief you like'.

 

[quatona]

Science assumes they were the same.

Well, were talking about your assumptions.
(On another note, it´s the thread starter´s premise that they were the same. So maybe you can have this discussion with him.)

To make that a valid supposition and belief you need to solidly support it. Here. Now.

You don´t meet these very criteria.

 

[dad]

Well, were talking about your assumptions.
(On another note, it´s the thread starter´s premise that they were the same. So maybe you can have this discussion with him.)

You don´t meet these very criteria.

Prove the nature was the same so that thus, the genetics would be the same or the thread is kaput as relates to origins.

 

[quatona]

Prove the nature was the same so that thus, the genetics would be the same

You made the assumptions, you support them.

or the thread is kaput as relates to origins.

Indeed, you are arguing against the thread starter and his ID argument.

 

[The Stamp]

This video provides reasons why DNA is definite evidence that there is indeed a creator.

A few questions,
how did you get to the point where the answer was a God?
how were you able to say it was the God you believed in who did it?
why did you rule out aliens doing it?
how can you believe it was done by a God if you don't have any evidence that it was done by a God?

 

[The Stamp]

Prove the nature was the same so that thus, the genetics would be the same or the thread is kaput as relates to origins.

You are making the claim that nature wasn't the same as it is now so it's up to you to show that it wasn't, if you can't show that it wasn't then you are just flapping your lips and making a noise.

 

[dad]

You made the assumptions, you support them.

Indeed, you are arguing against the thread starter and his ID argument.

It is no assumption that science assumes laws were the same.

Yes, I am saying the present nature DNA does not equal former nature DNA that we know.

 

[dad]

You are making the claim that nature wasn't the same as it is now so it's up to you to show that it wasn't, if you can't show that it wasn't then you are just flapping your lips and making a noise.

I am saying the bible indicates a different past and future and science doesn't know at all, but has merely assumed the past was the same without any proof.

 

[The Stamp]

I am saying the bible indicates a different past and future and science doesn't know at all, but has merely assumed the past was the same without any proof.

What could a book written when people knew virtually nothing about themselves or the world they lived in tell you about the past? I'm afraid your need to believe in a God is clouding your judgement.

 

[dad]

What could a book written when people knew virtually nothing about themselves or the world they lived in tell you about the past? I'm afraid your need to believe in a God is clouding your judgement.

Your idea of ancient man is wholly made up. The reality is we are less intelligent today.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I am saying the present nature DNA does not equal former nature DNA that we know.

It evolved?

 

[dad]

It evolved?

No. God changed the laws probably, and that affected genetics. It all depends on the nature in place...how life processes work.

 

[quatona]

No. God changed the laws probably, and that affected genetics.

You are invited to support this wild assumption.
On another note, you are going to run into huge theological problems with the assumption that God changes laws nilly willy.

 

[dad]

It doesn't matter if that is right or not. All that matters is science has no DNA and does not know what the former nature genetics were like! Any models based on present gene mutations or whatnot CANNOT be extrapolated into Noah's day.

 

[quatona]

It doesn't matter if that is right or not.

Seeing your vehement insistence that assumptions need to be supported (or else can be dismissed as wrong), it sure does, by your own standards.

 

[dad]

Seeing your vehement insistence that assumptions need to be supported (or else can be dismissed as wrong), it sure does, by your own standards.

Bible believers already accept that Jesus supported Scripture. Not an issue. The issue is science and supporting the science claim of a same nature in the past that is used for all past models.

 

[quatona]

Bible believers already accept that Jesus supported Scripture.

Cute.