@NapalmStrike802@Lunethyst_VT No, that's the plain reading view.
And the moment a religious text needs dozens of volumes of interpretive text to understand the 'meaning' is the moment it's obvious there is no God attached to that religion.
@darwintojesus God commands child sex slavery (as the spoils of war).
As everything God commands is Objectively Moral, according to you, so is child sex slavery.
@NapalmStrike802@Lunethyst_VT Everything is according to Gods plan, right? If he didn't want things the way they are, including original sin, then they wouldn't be.
Or are you suggesting that humans eating a fruit, both of which He created, results in something God is powerless to do anything about?
@Lunethyst_VT Well thats a whole lot of nonsense and double think.
"God wants you to not do the things He intentionally made you to do."
Do you actually parse your sentences before you type them?
@Clearpath__@AnthonyPle58179 To make it worse for you; let's assume that definition is true.
You're still wrong.
According to Christians God is All Powerful.
That makes providing physical, irrefutable, (and any number of other attributes) evidence trivial for God.
@darwintojesus Because believing in a supposedly All Good, All Powerful, All Knowing, Eternal, Invisible, Immaterial being for which there is no evidence, and can do nothing about evil, show they exist, or literally anything... is really, really stupid.
@Clearpath__@AnthonyPle58179 Your epistemological argument is based on a ontological argument. Thus falling into the fallacy. You literally spell it out in your own post.
@Clearpath__@AnthonyPle58179 That's called the ontological fallacy.
You are literally trying to define something into existence.
That is not how logic or reason work, let alone evidence.
@DPadenAkaterry Nope. Stop. Lying.
Wet-dry cycling, thermal vents, autocatalytic functions, and many more are known. Your ignorance is not an argument.
Orphan genes = mutations. Not rocket science.
There are known processes for all of these. Again, ignorance is not an argument.
What limits?
@DPadenAkaterry Nope.
Specified Complexity isn't Specified Information. Source; Dembski.
SI doesn't formalise anything. It mates two arbitrary concepts that don't belong together then tries to derive a log value from a different log value. Nonsense + Nonsense x Nonsense = Nonsense.
@DPadenAkaterry You can stop projecting the cope any time.
You also left out key factors for all those 'functions.' Namely they only happen when a) that portion of DNA is exposed for transcription and b) when the necessary base chemicals are present to be processed in a reaction.
@DPadenAkaterry Wow. You don't know how to read.
What I said was, DNA is the tool to store the code. Just as all the other forms of code humans use.
Binary is just electrical pulses. By your standard the fact those electrical pulses give the code to run your device means electricity is a code.
@DPadenAkaterry DNA is no more a 'pre-loaded, rule-based digital system' then any other chemical system. Cry about it.
'specified complexity' you mean the garbage math from William Dembski. Lol.
Letters are arbitrary. Humans assigned those meaning dumbass.