DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

So in other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and your objections to Krauss' hypothesis are based in ignorance.  That basically guarantees that your objections aren't rational.  Thanks for playing.  Better luck next time.

[...]

Of course, the fallacy in the latter “argument” is obvious. That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful.

Since I'm not suggesting that God does not exist, only that he is unnecessary when it comes to explaining the existence of the universe given the existence of space-time, I don't in any way need to prove the former to demonstrate the latter. If the latter is confirmed, then there is very good reason to doubt the existence of God, at least to the extent that an inability to explain the origin of the universe is evidence for the existence of God. So, as always, you fail in even presenting a relevant argument. You're guilty of the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, which basically says that even if what you say was true, and I have no need to doubt you, your conclusion as to the main argument would not follow. Basically, ignoratio elenchi is shorthand for "You wouldn't know a valid argument if it bit you in the ass." Why you think making logically invalid arguments should give us reason to have confidence in your claims, I don't know.

And Feser? Please. He has degrees in philosophy and religious studies. His criticism of Krauss' science would be no more credible than a janitor's notions about quantum mechanics. Krauss' atheism and his arguments for it are irrelevant. This is simply another example of ignoratio elenchi. You really suck at this. How can you be so blind to how badly you suck at logic and argument? I'll tell you how. Because you suck at the same skills when applied to assessing your own performance. You lack the skills necessary to competently assess your own competence. This is the lower end of the well known Dunning-Kruger effect. And it fits you to a tee.

All you and CDF are accomplishing with your continued illogical arguments and moronic assertions is giving people something to laugh at. Unfortunately for you, you don't realize the joke because you are the joke.

Got some more moronic and logically invalid arguments for me to laugh at?