DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[pocaracas]

I spent the time to read every response to my posts.  Not one even came close to explaining where the information bearing properties of DNA come from.  DNA contains a highly sophisticated "functional" code which encodes for proteins and directs protein synthesis.  It is information processing at its best.  No one can come close to refuting these truths because they are irrefutable but nice attempts using cheap debating tricks and slander.

And there you go...
I take the time to respond and you do this.
That's why you get treated like cancer. No respect for anything. Just blanket dismissal of people's attempts to provide you with some enlightenment.... and repeat ad nauseum of the same old thing: "I can't understand how this happened naturally, so god-did-it", well, like I said on my very first reply to you, you are presenting an argument from ignorance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
""is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is either true or false because of lack or absence of evidence or proof to the contrary. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false."""


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...-Ignorance
""The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”""

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"" a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. ""


https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100...-15013-0_3
""Typically, this argument involves a single premise to the effect that there is no evidence / proof / knowledge that x is true. From this premise is drawn the conclusion that x is false. Logicians of a traditional bent have been loathed to accept that anything of merit can be inferred from a lack of evidence or knowledge in argument. However, when construed as a presumptive argument, it is claimed that the argument from ignorance confers significant gains on the public health deliberations of cognitive agents.""

Do you get it now?