Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Frigidus]

And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old, we know that it is much older than the human species. Radiometric dating alone pushes us exponentially past the couple thousand years of known human history (although I'm sure someone will question its validity by mentioning lava flowing over older rock or something else that has been equally taken into account).

We should if a process takes millions of years of time, be able within recordable history to find the so-called "connections." By the way, you've never found them . We have around 3/4 thousand years of recorded history if you decide to take just things written by scribes or other recordkeepers in ancient civilizations. And yet, we have no evidence from all of them that a change occured. Ludicrous to think of all the people on the earth no one noticed something so "important."

Er...even if we had solid historical records from four thousand years ago it would still be a trivial amount of time for the kind of changes that you're looking to occur. I mean, in modern times alone we have observed things such as moth coloration changing to suit the environment, but if you're looking for a change on the order of old world monkey to human five thousand years is hardly a drop in the bucket. I mean, humans are estimated to have crossed over to the Americas something like 30,000 years ago and we still hadn't had enough time to split into different species before we all met up again.

I am able over a period of a week, month, or year observe something provided i don't die in that time frame, and as such is "OBSERVABLE." Something that not a single one of us can OBSERVE MUST be taken by the BELIEF, otherwise known as faith, that it occurs.

People are convicted every day for murders that nobody was around to witness but them (and their victims). This doesn't mean that we are taking their guilt as an article of faith. We are able to look at evidence and extrapolate.

[crispybits]

DId I really break the rules? Yes
He did not specify a specific area of time. Are you referring to the show me before tomorrow? Yes Sure dead skin cells are proof of death and time and if i just scrap them away from said body it works. No, dead skin cells die and you have more skin underneath, skin that looks exactly like the skin that you scraped off - no evidence of ageing there. However, not once in the video did RC specify a specific timeframe just the fact that it can be observed. (Over the span of his, or a persons, life). So he didnt specify a timeframe, but he did specify within a lifetime - which one is it?
And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand. God made the world to seem as if it has existed for all those years on the calendars, when actually he made it this morning with the apearance of age. We are all mere hours old.
We should if a process takes millions of years of time, be able within recordable history to find the so-called "connections." By the way, you've never found them . We can and we have, because your pastor tells you that everything biologists say is a lie because it proves his untestable and unobservable hypothesis wrong does not make that the truth, We have around 3/4 thousand years of recorded history Lies, as I said the universe is only hours old if you decide to take just things written by scribes or other recordkeepers in ancient civilizations. And yet, we have no evidence from all of them that a change occured. Ludicrous to think of all the people on the earth no one noticed something so "important." Just as ludicrous to think that this unproven ageing process happens in our hours old universe. Since this morning I have never seen someone grow old and die - some people were created old this morning is all.
I am able over a period of a week, month, or year observe something provided i don't die in that time frame, and as such is "OBSERVABLE." Something that not a single one of us can OBSERVE MUST be taken by the BELIEF, otherwise known as faith, that it occurs.

We give you the timeframe of 4 billion years. The only argument you have against 4 billion years is that the bible says it's not so. Everything else points to it being so. Of course a human lifespan is much shorter than 4 billion years so one human, or indeed the entire written and oral history of the human race doesn't stretch that far (250,000 years at most, and more like just under 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age) but that's not proof that 4 billion years doesn't exist, just that humans weren't around to see it all. To claim otherwise (that humans were created in a universe with the appearance of age) is directly analogous to the claim that the universe was created this morning and we are not ageing.

[Woodruff]

And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old

Can't we, thanks to the Hubble Telescope and the speed of light?

[crispybits]

But has nobody told you Woodruff, when God created the universe a few thousand years ago he made it look old, he created it with light rays already in transit, etc etc

[BigBallinStalin]

Haha, this must be embarrassing for the creationists/young earthers.

I guess they could relax the standards of logic by declaring that the "just this morning" analogy is ridiculous.

[crispybits]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true becuase that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

[Jdsizzleslice]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, that's another way to relax the standards of logic! Good job, JD.

[chang50]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

Except a scientific theory is totally different to the type of theory you are referring to.Unless you think the theory of gravity,or atomic theory or the germ theory of disease are temporary explanations.By which standard all of science is temporary explanation and we can know nothing to be true,including the truth of the claims made in holy books.
What reason,other than circular logic do you have for believing the bible sets the facts in stone?

[crispybits]

Haha, this must be embarrassing for the creationists/young earthers.

I guess they could relax the standards of logic by declaring that the "just this morning" analogy is ridiculous.

Also, if they do I'd like to know why it's ridiculous to believe the universe was created fully formed and artifically aged a few thousand years ago but not this morning.

[Woodruff]

But why is it ridiculous BBS - can they PROVE it's not true - if not then by some of their own logic we must believe it is true because that book God created this morning that tells us about how he created it in 6 days (a day to God is about a milli micro nanosecond to us) is obviously the only thing to be trusted and anyone who speaks against it's literal truth once you redefine about half the words in there is a liar nd is going straight to hell!

Can you find anything else that says "This is how the start of it happened" that isn't a theory? The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence. Theories like The Big Bang Theory, and Evolution, are mere theories. The definition of a theory is pretty much a temporary explanation. It's not truth, it just says what some scientists think how the universe came about.

You don't seem to have a very firm grasp on what the idea of "theory" means in scientific circles. For example, the theory of gravity.

However, the Bible is the only one that sets the facts in stone.

Did I somehow overlook that you were being sarcastic? Surely this is sarcasm, isn't it?

[universalchiro]

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old, we know that it is much older than the human species. Radiometric dating alone pushes us exponentially past the couple thousand years of known human history (although I'm sure someone will question its validity by mentioning lava flowing over older rock or something else that has been equally taken into account).

Look, ya'll don't understand what you believe. You are going on faith alone.
A. You weren't there.
B. It's not observable.
C. Radiometric dating/Radioactive Isotopic dating seems well and dandy, but with a closer look, there are some serious flaws with this dating system.

Radioactive dating:
#Pb ions/ #Po ions X Constant Rate of Decay = Age of item being tested.

The problem is with the "Constant Rate of Decay". How do you know the rate of decay has always been constant? I know it seems constant with our short term viewing. But consider this,
Is there evidence in nature that the Rate of Decay can be accelerated? Yes . Petrified wood is suppose to take 500,000 years to form. Yet Mount Saint Helen erupted in 1980 & has produced petrified wood in only 30 years. WOW! a 499,970 year acceleration.
Is there evidence that mankind can accelerate the "Constant" Rate of decay? Yes.
Take a piece of wood + trace clay + -O2 (vacuum) + H2O + heat (150 C) + pressure + time (8 months) = 100% coal in only 8 months.... Coal that is indistinguishable with coal that is suppose to take 20 million years to form via the "Constant Rate of Decay" process.
Chicken farmers sends byproducts to distilleries and within 30 minutes of heating the byproducts, 100% petroleum oil is produced. A process that is suppose to take 50 million years...

So Nature can accelerate petrification from 500,000 years down to 30 years.
Humans can accelerate coalification from 20 million years down to 8 months.
Humans can accelerate the petroleum production from 50 million years down to 30 minutes.

Why do you take this great leap of faith that the "Constant Rate of Decay" has always been constant? Why? Because it's faith based.

Look at the Grand Canyon: If each layer took millions or even thousands of years to form, there would be massive commingling of layers. But that is not what we see. There are distinct layers.

Darwinian Evolution of changing of kinds, is not observable, nor testable. Only thing evolutionist do is see adaptation & say that's proof of evolution. ie the Galapagos Finches that have adapted, They are still finches.... and the Bacteria that has adapted, are still bacteria.

[rishaed]

And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old, we know that it is much older than the human species. Radiometric dating alone pushes us exponentially past the couple thousand years of known human history (although I'm sure someone will question its validity by mentioning lava flowing over older rock or something else that has been equally taken into account).

But the flaw with radiometric dating is that it cannot calculate how much of said isotope was already present. It must assume that it is at zero. Manmade artifacts work usually i theorize because the ones that last usually have gone through a refinement process. Depending on how much of the substance is present you are dealing with a very LARGE margin of error. Not that I'm saying that the earth isn't old, what I'm saying is that we cannot in present time determine its age.

We should if a process takes millions of years of time, be able within recordable history to find the so-called "connections." By the way, you've never found them . We have around 3/4 thousand years of recorded history if you decide to take just things written by scribes or other recordkeepers in ancient civilizations. And yet, we have no evidence from all of them that a change occured. Ludicrous to think of all the people on the earth no one noticed something so "important."

Er...even if we had solid historical records from four thousand years ago it would still be a trivial amount of time for the kind of changes that you're looking to occur. I mean, in modern times alone we have observed things such as moth coloration changing to suit the environment, but if you're looking for a change on the order of old world monkey to human five thousand years is hardly a drop in the bucket. I mean, humans are estimated to have crossed over to the Americas something like 30,000 years ago and we still hadn't had enough time to split into different species before we all met up again.

This falls under ADAPTATION or Speciation (caused by genetic drift) which is:Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.[1] The alleles in the offspring are a sample of those in the parents, and chance has a role in determining whether a given individual survives and reproduces. A population's allele frequency is the fraction of the copies of one gene that share a particular form.[2] Genetic drift may cause gene variants to disappear completely and thereby reduce genetic variation.
, its still the same moth. Also noted that It may cause GENE VARIANTS TO DISAPPEAR COMPLETELY, showing the loss of the required DNA in the species to reverse the Genetic drift.

I am able over a period of a week, month, or year observe something provided i don't die in that time frame, and as such is "OBSERVABLE." Something that not a single one of us can OBSERVE MUST be taken by the BELIEF, otherwise known as faith, that it occurs.

People are convicted every day for murders that nobody was around to witness but them (and their victims). This doesn't mean that we are taking their guilt as an article of faith. We are able to look at evidence and extrapolate.

This quite true however the evidence has been tested, proven, and can be replicated in different cases. Such as Fingerprints and DNA. Why? Because they are unique to every person and don't give false-positives. Unless the person was framed, but i digress. But my question here is you still haven't provided evidence that people can extrapolate from, for anything other than adaptation.
fp'd

[rishaed]

Note to Christians: ya'll face a dilemma when you say you believe in Evolution as the means for which God created everything. Why? Jesus, the Son of God, God in the flesh, for which the crux of the matters lies with, quoted genesis 1 & 2 when referring to the original Adam & Eve. So if the Christ believes in a literal Genesis account, ...

Very interesting, but stupid.

1. Adam and Eve are not in Genesis 1.
2. Jesus was talking about the story of Eve as it relates to marriage.
3. Jesus never uses the word "literal."
4. Jesus also said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (which is why the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath). This would not be true of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1.

Jesus NEVER used the word literal......Does it mean that some of the things he said shouldn't be taken literally, NO!
In what way is it not literal? IF you are referring to quoting ad verbatim, then no it is not literal. However when GOD gave definite boundaries through the word usage and context, then why do you fight it?

[rishaed]

I hope crispy bits won't mind me taking first crack at this one.

C. I come from a mortal line of people, who I can observe as they die, and as other people die.

Aside from again breaking the rules, did you ever meet your great great great grandparents? Did you personally witness your own birth? How can you be sure that you weren't created this morning with the appearance (and artificial memories) of age, much in the way young Earth creationists argue the universe was created to look ancient?

How does this break the rules? I can take you to the cemetery where they died, where if you wanted and had the proper permissions, you could exhume them and see if I was telling the truth. And I might not have met my great great great grandparents, but i did meet my great grandfather, shortly before he died. My Grandmother has died in my lifetime, 100 people die a minute and 146,000 people die every day. I can show you photographs during my childhood of myself. That are distinctly and defined, in a way that I can prove they are me. There are many ways to show that I wasn't created this morning with artificial memories.

D. Facial Hair, Loss of Baby Teeth, Growth of breasts in females, Voice cracking are all signs of aging in adolescence.

Microchanges, unjustified extrapolating, has never been observed in one day, circumstantial evidence.

E. Grey hair, hair loss, changes in Eyesight, Height changes (growth when young, shrink when older), Hearing.

There are plenty of colors of hair, I've never seen all of someones hair fall out instantly, has never been observed in one day (not counting injury or disease), has never been observed in one day, has never been observed in one day (not counting injury or disease). Height changes slowly over night when you sleep. (Tis a fact) It is small almost unnoticable but if you were measured everymorning it would be slightly different.

F. Change of desires and maturity.

You're just saying that aging proves aging here.

G. Changes in Bone brittleness, bones become more brittle as people get older, also why they break easier.

More of the same,

Want more? There are lots of ways to observe aging even over a slow period of time. As for mortality? Well, I'd rather not test that one quite yet for myself to see if i became immortal from reading your post. I'll just have to know that the human race is mortal, and barring unforeseen circumstances I will say that I am too.

No, no, no. You can't use a slow period of time. I want the evidence now. Nobody has ever witnessed someone grow old and die within a day. Crocoduck.

Do you at least see the point of this? There is a clear parallel between this and the demand to see evolution (a process that even at its fastest occurs on a timescale of millions of years) occur within a lifetime.[/quote]
So basically you are stating that we must take aging based on faith, but also EVOLUTION based on blind faith as well. I can pull things out of my past (even recent past) that show that I have physical changes and do change.

[tzor]

Can an evolutionist give one observable evidence that is repeatable

Sure, I can give you plenty of them. These observations require only a mere million years of your time.

Two butterflies were having a discussion the other day about the seasons. One insisted that seasons never happened and demanded observable evidence that was repeatable. They argued for over five minutes and died the very next day of old age. Yes, your point is exactly that pointless.

[rishaed]

A. Scabs,injuries and other things can tell me that by body is changing and is not constant.

While you might be able to show me examples of microchanges taking place within or on the surface of the body, these change are far too small to suggest the ludicrous macrochanges put forth by those arguing that we age and eventually die. Indeed, the idea that the human body will always stop the bleeding of a scratch or scrape is one of the most obvious arguments against aging. Whenever something negatively impacts a human being, whether it be a scraped knee or a cold, the body automatically does everything it can to fix the harm that has been done. So, the question is begged, why would the same not hold true for this fabled aging process? Surely the body would work to counter such a slow acting process? Ageists just can't seem to keep their story straight.

Sorry for double/triple posting however, THE aging process is relatively one of your body breaking down, and no longer able to support the same functions that it used too. And we can theoretically say that it does, thus keeping us alive for how long we live.... Eventually thought the body can no longer counter it thus aging and eventually death. I'm saying that the body over time is breaking DOWN not EVOLVING into a new kind of animal. The genetic drift evidence I posted earlier shows the decay, or the tendency to disorder even in the Genetic form. Unless you are going to argue that the bacteria/microorganisms are more complex and have all the DNA to devolve into life as we know it.

[tzor]

We give you the time frame of 4 billion years. The only argument you have against 4 billion years is that the bible says it's not so. Everything else points to it being so. Of course a human lifespan is much shorter than 4 billion years so one human, or indeed the entire written and oral history of the human race doesn't stretch that far (250,000 years at most, and more like just under 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age) but that's not proof that 4 billion years doesn't exist, just that humans weren't around to see it all. To claim otherwise (that humans were created in a universe with the appearance of age) is directly analogous to the claim that the universe was created this morning and we are not ageing.

Actually it is a lot worse than that. It is if not borderline, downright heresy. If the heavens are the work of God's hands, (or commands), and indeed at the end of creation He called everything "good" then to suggest that God would design the universe so that it would appear to us (as opposed to those who came before us or more specifically before Hubble and his observation of red shifted galaxies) would suggest that everything was not "good" because the universe is a grand deception of the highest order of magnitude. Such a universe cannot be created by God for deception is against His own nature. The young earth people call God a deceiver at best and an outright liar at worst. The heavens declare the glory of God, not His deception.

[tzor]

Can't we, thanks to the Hubble Telescope and the speed of light?

Technically no. Distances are still based on red shifts for the most part and there is the annoying non argument about the variability of the speed of light over time.

Sometime next year we should have the means to measure by parallax distances beyond that of the young earth time frame. Hand waving away geometry is harder than hand waving away red shifts.

[tzor]

The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence.

The problem is not that the Bible "clearly states" how the universe came into existence; the problem is that the "Universe" of the Bible is wrong. It is wrong because the "science" of the day was wrong.

We need to get down to the brass tacks and tackle the number one problem in the room. There is no firmament. Rain does not come from a reservoir that lies above the metal dome where the sun, moon, and stars are located. Neither does the land float on a great source of water from below. Just like you can't take pieces of the law and select the ones you want and reject the ones you don't want, you can't take the "facts" of the Bible and select the ones you want and reject the ones you find harder to explain because the facts say otherwise.

This is not to say that the Bible is not "true." The Bible is very true, but it is not a physics textbook. You must look at the Bible like an expressionist painting. If you stare at a small pixel of the painting it's going to look like an odd three dimensional blob of paint. Only when you look at the entire painting do you see the true image. Stop looking at the brush strokes and look at the image. Text, within context, within the literary style and the understanding of the people at the time, will help you to understand the revealed truth that is in the passage.

[Frigidus]

And the CALENDAR, is Current history that is DOCUMENTED, not just hypothesis of hypothesis. (You cannot prove that the Universe is Billions of years old. However I can prove that it is at least a couple of thousands from Archeological remains and history kept by civilizations.) Thus your argument does not stand.

While I can't prove that the universe is billions of years old

Can't we, thanks to the Hubble Telescope and the speed of light?

I should perhaps put a bit more emphasis on the "I" in that. I know the general methods that have been used to estimate the age of the universe, but I don't personally have a strong enough grasp on them to argue the age of the universe over the internet. I suppose I could do some research, but considering the exact age of the universe is only tangentially relevant to the conversation I'm willing to just avoid the topic.

[Woodruff]

Can't we, thanks to the Hubble Telescope and the speed of light?

Technically no. Distances are still based on red shifts for the most part and there is the annoying non argument about the variability of the speed of light over time.

As you say though, that is an argument made by the ignorant.

Sometime next year we should have the means to measure by parallax distances beyond that of the young earth time frame. Hand waving away geometry is harder than hand waving away red shifts.

I'm afraid you underestimate the lengths that those who are unwilling to budge are willing to go to preserve their perception of reality. Hand-waving geometry doesn't seem particularly less likely than hand-waving physics.

[Woodruff]

The Bible is the only piece of documentation that clearly stated how the universe came into existence.

The problem is not that the Bible "clearly states" how the universe came into existence; the problem is that the "Universe" of the Bible is wrong. It is wrong because the "science" of the day was wrong.

We need to get down to the brass tacks and tackle the number one problem in the room. There is no firmament. Rain does not come from a reservoir that lies above the metal dome where the sun, moon, and stars are located. Neither does the land float on a great source of water from below. Just like you can't take pieces of the law and select the ones you want and reject the ones you don't want, you can't take the "facts" of the Bible and select the ones you want and reject the ones you find harder to explain because the facts say otherwise.

This is not to say that the Bible is not "true." The Bible is very true, but it is not a physics textbook. You must look at the Bible like an expressionist painting. If you stare at a small pixel of the painting it's going to look like an odd three dimensional blob of paint. Only when you look at the entire painting do you see the true image. Stop looking at the brush strokes and look at the image. Text, within context, within the literary style and the understanding of the people at the time, will help you to understand the revealed truth that is in the passage.

Yes. This brings to mind Arthur C. Clarke's three laws, one of which is something along the lines of "Any sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". The Bible HAD to be put into terms that were accurate FOR THAT TIME, but the scientific knowledge FOR THAT TIME has been shown to have been awful. Is it possible that our scientific knowledge is still pretty awful? Absolutely...but it's far less awful than it was FOR THAT TIME, and it doesn't make any sense at all to hold onto that historical awfulness.

[Frigidus]

Sorry for double/triple posting however, THE aging process is relatively one of your body breaking down, and no longer able to support the same functions that it used too. And we can theoretically say that it does, thus keeping us alive for how long we live.... Eventually thought the body can no longer counter it thus aging and eventually death. I'm saying that the body over time is breaking DOWN not EVOLVING into a new kind of animal.

While I suppose I could use red herrings and topic changes to continue the parallels between creationist arguments I feel at that point I would be stepping from making a point to trolling. The point of this clearly silly argument over whether or not we are aging is that writing off evolution because it doesn't occur within a few decades is like pooh poohing our models of star lifetimes because of their scale.

The genetic drift evidence I posted earlier shows the decay, or the tendency to disorder even in the Genetic form. Unless you are going to argue that the bacteria/microorganisms are more complex and have all the DNA to devolve into life as we know it.

Well, if we're talking in strictly who has "the most" DNA amoebas actually have roughly 200 times more than we do. Of course, most of that is genetic baggage riding the coattails of the DNA actually responsible for replication, but I suppose you could say that they have "all the DNA" that we do and more.

As a sidenote, the term "devolve" doesn't really mean anything. It implies the unfounded idea of an organism being objectively better than the one that they evolved from. It is more correct to say that they are more suited to successfully multiplying in the environment they currently find themselves in.

Anyways, I'm going to take what I think is the relevant quote here (if I'm looking at the wrong post feel free to correct me):

The fact that DNA is so complex that if a single strand is wrong (or even a pairing), it causes diseases/altercations if the person or animal even lives. The fact that DNA does not GAIN information only loses, i read in a well know science magazine that the someone found that the absence of mRNA (microRNA) is a leading factor in cancer. The fact that to be even probable some scientists evolution would require BILLIONS of years. Now if I did my calculus correctly if I took the limit of that probability (which is 1 over some huge number in its billions) I am approaching ZERO?

All right, so I'm seeing three ideas here. I will list and respond to each of them individually.

1. Changes in DNA leads to problems

This is absolutely true in some cases, but not universally. Every person is the result of a shuffle of their parents genetic decks with the slightest amount of drift to account for mistakes in replication. While the differences genetically between two people are trivial compared to what they share, these small differences clearly lead to quite different results. If any change was negative then we would not see the diversity within a species that we do.

2. DNA doesn't gain information, it only loses it

That's a bold claim. Where did you hear that from? This is more of a guess than anything else, but if you're extrapolating this idea from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics you need to take the sun into account. Entropy never decreases in a closed system.

3. Life is unlikely to exist

While I won't tie myself to any particular probability (most probabilities cited for complex things like the creation of life are either enitrely made up or based off of incorrect assumptions), I will just point out that any given reality that might have existed is astoundingly unlikely to have occurred. Of all of the near infinite number of possibilities of what might have existed, one had to be the actual universe. Each given potential universe is individually improbable, but that doesn't imply that whatever came up was designed.

[BigBallinStalin]

Maybe they don't understand the rules of logic. They use it selectively for their own purposes, but when it's applied consistently (e.g. crispy's "just now" analogy), then it's ignored.

e.g. universalcairo's response here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=110240&start=3135#p4254037
That's not even an argument against the one presented, and he's rehashing the same argument (repetition won't help one's case).

rishaed's getting bogged down into too fine of the details, so maybe the whole point of the analogy needs to be reiterated for him.