(April 22, 2019 at 4:08 pm)CDF47 Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 3:22 pm)madog Wrote: I watched the full video  ... it was painful lol  .... but Dr Tour does not make a case for design, he simply says that he thinks a cell is too complex to be created by evolution  .... he does not offer an alternative ....

He says near the beginning that he is going to stay away from doing that.

---

So where is the apology?

Quote:I will discuss the videos in my signature and the one's that I post. 

Which fail just as hard 

Quote:I am not here to back up the video posted by another user.

Because you can't

---

Quote: So this is the best you have to offer?  You didn't even begin to address the information problem in your argument.

Actually he did

(April 22, 2019 at 4:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I am not here to back up the video posted by another user.

I never asked you to defend posting the video, but the numerous lies you told about the author and its contents, such as .... a quote from you :- 'He makes a really solid case for design.'

(April 22, 2019 at 11:07 am)CDF47 Wrote: I ignore the BS tactic of insults the best I can.  It is just a tactic to keep people from posting opposing opinions.

(April 22, 2019 at 5:05 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 11:07 am)CDF47 Wrote: I ignore the BS tactic of insults the best I can.  It is just a tactic to keep people from posting opposing opinions.

 

Whats your thoughts on an opposition that claims victory because you won't watch a video they present and then when you do it has nothing to do with the debate? then they lie about it when called out?

(April 22, 2019 at 6:03 pm)madog Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 5:05 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:  

Whats your thoughts on an opposition that claims victory because you won't watch a video they present and then when you do it has nothing to do with the debate? then they lie about it when called out?

Or demands you engage with there "arguments" and "evidence ' without actually engaging it and just proclaiming a bunch of psedo logic mixed with " I don't have to show it's true you have to show it's wrong "

(April 22, 2019 at 11:07 am)CDF47 Wrote:

---

(April 22, 2019 at 5:57 am)Gwaithmir Wrote: His nonsensical replies give him a feeling of self-importance. I have no doubt that he actually fancies himself to be an intelligent person, which he clearly isn't. It's also obvious that he is enamored with the sound of his own voice; a rather sad case. Notice how he never comes up with any rational counterarguments, but replies with nothing more than denials and contradictions, all the while thinking that he's winning a debate. 

This is just more discussion for me.  The debate was won with the first post in this thread in the OP, LOL.

Oh, I forgot to mention that you lie a lot too. Sorry, but you started off this discussion with unsupported assertions based upon your own incredulity and ignorance, and nothing more. As I said before, you're really not very good at this. There are several viable models to explain the origins of DNA and its properties. Get an education, numb nuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution

(April 22, 2019 at 4:39 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:They get things wrong all the time.

In this instance anything they have gotten wrong pales in comparison to what they have gotten right . Unlike ID which has never gotten anything right and needs to keep making Ad hoc excuses when they fail .

Quote:  it is part of human nature. 

Yup but see above 

Quote:You act like the scientific establishment is your god.

The total opposite your projecting your feelings toward ID cranks towards me .

---

Quote:Ahh more insults from Internet keyboard warriors.  I'm impressed.

More butthurt from a Christian keyboard warrior and I have no doubt we would say all this to your face .

No, scientists get things wrong all the time.  Quit substituting them in as your god.

I doubt that.

---

(April 22, 2019 at 4:41 pm)madog Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 4:08 pm)CDF47 Wrote: He says near the beginning that he is going to stay away from doing that.

---

So where is the apology?

Apology for what.  He shows things are designed but does not talk about the Designer.

---

(April 22, 2019 at 4:42 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:I will discuss the videos in my signature and the one's that I post. 

Which fail just as hard 

Quote:I am not here to back up the video posted by another user.

Because you can't

---

Quote: So this is the best you have to offer?  You didn't even begin to address the information problem in your argument.

Actually he did

No, they don't.  Yes, I can.  No, he didn't.

At least science admits when it's wrong, so that it can learn from its mistakes, while theism wallows in its misguidedness.

(April 22, 2019 at 4:49 pm)madog Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 4:05 pm)CDF47 Wrote: I am not here to back up the video posted by another user.

I never asked you to defend posting the video, but the numerous lies you told about the author and its contents, such as .... a quote from you :- 'He makes a really solid case for design.'

He shows things must have been designed.

---

(April 22, 2019 at 6:03 pm)madog Wrote:

(April 22, 2019 at 5:05 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:  

Whats your thoughts on an opposition that claims victory because you won't watch a video they present and then when you do it has nothing to do with the debate? then they lie about it when called out?

I don't think he did that.  Would be cool if he would come back and defend his video he posted.