you say tomato I say tomato

So I took your advice and googled this. And apparently it's not quantum physics, but rather biologists that discovered checksum-like behavior in DNA. Is it really a leap of logic to think that natural evolution developed a technique for double checking the fidelity of copying that is somewhat similar to something people developed? I mean, there are certain problems in the physical world that both DNA and humans must overcome. Is it crazy to think we'd find similar solutions?

Finally, to take all that to the the logical conclusion that we're in a computer simulation somewhere is just... lol. You sound like Joe Rogan. You want to believe crazy shit so fucking bad that you'll take huge leaps of logic to get there. Have you looked into Scientology? Might be a good fit for you.

If you accepted that we are living in a computer simulated reality, you would have to concede the creator is our GOD

But, you believe that everything is too complex to be a computer simulation, thus there is no God

Do you see the fallacy

I'll skip all of the assumptions you wrote about me, (Assumptions, wow, how scientific is that? Is that the scientific method you were lecturing me about?) and go straight to your problem. You, like so many arrogant college science students before you, think you have everything figured out, and that is laughable. Some of science's greatest minds believed they knew it all too. The earth was flat. Our solar system revolved around the Earth. Spontaneous generation. Blank slate theory. Cold fusion. Static Universe. The list is goes on and on. The things you think are proven fact now, will be as laughable as many we now look back on. Go on parroting the drivel you hear in school and wake up. You look childish. (kind of like that guy in the bar in Good Will Hunting)

The fallacy is that you assume what I believe. I don't believe in a single goddamn thing, I personally hate that word and avoid it at all costs. That one word and the idea behind it has been the greatest plague of humanity, far worse than anything else I can think of.

You have to believe one way or the other, otherwise you are a vegetable

You simply can't use the "ignorant" form of atheism definition in modern society

No they adapted. Not evolved. Two different things. They did not become Y. Pestis did they? They are still S. aureus, just resistant due to exposure. Next!

And by the way, I am not a nurse. I am in nursing school. Try reading next time.

This is why I believe macroevolution will one day be proven false. There is simply an enormous lack of evidence for it whatsoever.

I see the fallacy. You introduced a pretty obvious strawman in the second sentence. Who said things are too complex to be a computer simulation? Further, who said that this then implied there is no god?

Question: Assuming there is a god(s), is/are they omniscient?