6 numbers

[Sharkey]

A position of mystery is never completely logical, nor should it be.

My understanding is that the standard of evidence in science is replaceable sufficient cause. There is evidence for evolution, but there’s evidence for a lot of things that are not so.

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I mean things that appear to be artifacts of our genetic heritage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they’re artifacts of our creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

So when scientists find the gene that manufactures vitamin C in all other mammals, and then finds the same gene -- broken -- in humans, that's proof of creation? Why would God put the broken gene in humans? If he didn’t want us to produce vitamin C, just leave the gene out. Is he deliberately trying to fool us into believing in evolution?

[Sharkey]

Until someone produces it, those details don’t add up to proof of anything.

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
Until someone produces it, those details don’t add up to proof of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm banging my head against the wall, but when you say produce "it", what do you mean? Produce vitamin C?

You're right: the fact that you have a broken gene in your DNA (that functions in almost every other living creature on Earth) implies that God is either incompetent or "mysterious”.

[Sharkey]

I suggest you don’t flatter yourself by banging your head, but make logical points.

In context, “it” could only mean proof.

As for the “broken” gene in DNA, two previous questions of mine to those who claim “imperfection” in the design of life:

1. Do you mean imperfection in terms of its intended function?

2. If so, what do you consider that function to be?

[FredBoots]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Do you mean imperfection in terms of its intended function?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
2. If so, what do you consider that function to be?

[/ QUOTE ]
To produce vitamin C.

[Sharkey]

On what basis do you claim the intent of the design of life is to produce vitamin C?