DNA Code Indicates Creator

[Loudmouth]

You are arguing with me. Agree with me and you have to do nothing.

Huh?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you please stop talking about it if you don't know already. I'll let you off the hook.

You are the one talking about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You don't know is not the same as "God did not do it" either.
That is my point.

Being anti-God is not a synonym for ignorance either.

No one is claiming that God did not do it. We are claiming that there is no reason at all to think that a God did do it.

If you want to claim that a God did do it then the burden of proof is upon you. And no one has presented any valid evidence for a god being involved at all.

Here is an exercise that should help you to see whether the burden of proof is upon you or not. Simply replace the word "God" in your quote with the word "pixies" If someone that you were debating with on pixies said:

"You don't know" is not the same as "Pixies did not do it" either.

Would you believe your friends pixie claims?

The burden of proof is always upon the person making a positive statement and no one on the God side has done so yet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then a brief synopsis will be all the more easy for you. If DNA isn't a problem for evolution.

If you choose not to, It's because you don't know and then you would be wasting my time.

Don't make false claims about others. That is not a proper Christan thing to do. Someone already posted for you where new DNA comes from..

If you can't be honest enough to even own up to an obvious error on your part then you will not be honest enough to accept an answer. Why should I waste my time if someone is bound ad determined not to understand?

 

[ToBeLoved]

No one is claiming that God did not do it. We are claiming that there is no reason at all to think that a God did do it.

If you want to claim that a God did do it then the burden of proof is upon you. And no one has presented any valid evidence for a god being involved at all.

Here is an exercise that should help you to see whether the burden of proof is upon you or not. Simply replace the word "God" in your quote with the word "pixies" If someone that you were debating with on pixies said:

"You don't know" is not the same as "Pixies did not do it" either.

Would you believe your friends pixie claims?

The burden of proof is always upon the person making a positive statement and no one on the God side has done so yet.

But you are stating in this thread God didn't do it.

I'm asking for your proof.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Don't make false claims about others. That is not a proper Christan thing to do. Someone already posted for you where new DNA comes from..

If you can't be honest enough to even own up to an obvious error on your part then you will not be honest enough to accept an answer. Why should I waste my time if someone is bound ad determined not to understand?

I don't have to accept any answer.

You seem to think I do. I do not

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But you are stating in this thread God didn't do it.

I'm asking for your proof.

Can you please link to the post where somebody makes that claim? I think everyone would back your request for "proof", although we'd settle for simple evidence of that claim.

But why not take the high ground and set a good example by providing some evidence for your claim that "Evolutionary goo does not create DNA"?

 

[ToBeLoved]

Can you please link to the post where somebody makes that claim? I think everyone would back your request for "proof", although we'd settle for simple evidence of that claim.

But why not take the high ground and set a good example by providing some evidence for your claim that evolution cannot produce DNA?

I don't think it is far fetched if all of life came from one instance of life to then say that DNA is a problem for that theory. If you cannot understand how that could be so when each person's DNA is different than I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I don't think it is far fetched if all of life came from one instance of life to then say that DNA is a problem for that theory. If you cannot understand how that could be so when each person's DNA is different than I don't know what to tell you.

Let's try again. And allow me to paraphrase something I saw earlier in this thread....

Why don't you give me the 100 word synopsis on the evidence of why evolutionary goo cannot create DNA? I do like it when people support their claims.

You've seen the synopsis you requested. Now you need to put up or shut up.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Let's try again. And allow me to paraphrase something I saw earlier in this thread....

Why don't you give me the 100 word synopsis on the evidence of why evolutionary goo cannot create DNA? I do like it when people support their claims.

You've seen the synopsis you requested. Now you need to put up or shut up.

If you are going to be rude ....

You did so well until the last sentence. I was all about to do it. Then I read the last sentence.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you are going to be rude ....

You did so well until the last sentence. I was all about to do it. Then I read the last sentence.

If I was rude then I've broken site rules. Please go ahead and report me. If you don't my only conclusion can be that I wasn't actually rude and you are, as usual, making excuses for having nothing to bring to the discussion.

Of course, if another user makes a polite request for that synopsis and you provide it I will retract that statement and offer profuse apologies

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you are stating in this thread God didn't do it.

No, I am not. I have state that there is no evidence of a god being involved at all so there is no logical reason to accredit any god.

I'm asking for your proof.

No proof needed of a claim that I never made.

 

[Radrook]

Here is an additional video that is very relevant to the thread theme:

----------------------------------------------------------

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Here is an additional video that is very relevant to the thread theme:

In a church. Hilarious.

 

[Radrook]

In a church. Hilarious.

The information stands or falls on its own merit. Your premise is flawed. Location and audience is irrelevant.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

The information stands or falls on its own merit. Your premise is flawed. Location and audience is irrelevant.

Fair enough. Amongst the arguments presented:

1. Argument from incredulity
2. Appeal to authority
3. Incorrect assertions about what information is
4. Personal opinion

What it doesn't have is anything which constitutes supporting evidence. In short, it has no merit so it falls.

 

[Radrook]

Fair enough. It has no merit so it falls.

That's your opinion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That's your opinion.

And I assume you think my opinion is ill-founded? Would you please be so kind as to show why I have come to the wrong conclusion? I like to learn and would rather be corrected than be left in ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The information stands or falls on its own merit. Your premise is flawed. Location and audience is irrelevant.

If he had valid scientific points, you wouldn't have to post a church sermon. Then you'ld just cite the scientific papers discussing said points.

 

[ToBeLoved]

If he had valid scientific points, you wouldn't have to post a church sermon. Then you'ld just cite the scientific papers discussing said points.

Science is biased against religion/God. Always has been.