DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

I have never put anyone on ignore in over 30 years of electronic discussions, yet you make the prospect of doing so highly attractive.  This is not evidence, this is just more stupid and ignorant bleating on your part.

I pointed out why what you have provided does not constitute evidence for what you have claimed.  Either point out how I am wrong, provide some evidence, or shut the fuck up and go away.

Repeating your ignorant and stupid denials to the contrary isn't any of the above.  I have denied no 'truth', because what you consider truth is nothing more than false bullshit.

False bullshit does not become evidence by your repeating it.

EVIDENCE OR GTFO.

A mountain of evidence is provided throughout this thread starting on page 1.

I pointed out quite clearly why that wasn't evidence for what you claimed two posts ago. If you're too stupid to understand it, or too intellectually dishonest to reply to the arguments, then maybe you shouldn't post anymore until you are. You've provided jack shit in terms of evidence for your claim that the information could not have arisen through natural means. The "can't" there is the critical part. Even if I were being generous, one could only conclude based upon what you've provided that it is unlikely that natural means could produce such information, not that they "can't" produce it. When it is rephrased that way, one has to ask what the reason for its apparent unlikelihood is? And the answer to that is that we don't yet possess an impeccable chain of evidence linking the dirt to microbes to man story. But we don't need to have such an impeccable explanation for two reasons. First, the assertion that nature can't do it because it's unlikely to do it is fallacious, what is likely does not inform what is possible. The second is that the assessment of its likelihood is based upon the absence of knowledge -- namely the lack of an impeccable explanation -- and so that assessment is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, and so the conclusion doesn't follow. We can't know things simply based upon the things we don't know. That's simply faulty reasoning. Yet that has been your repeated basis for the claims that you have made.

So, again, provide some actual, positive evidence that natural means "can't" produce this information instead of this weak sauce shit about, "we don't know, therefore God!" That's a fallacious argument to its core, yet that is all that you've provided. So I'll say it again, provide some evidence of your claim that natural means "can't" produce complex information or shut the fuck up with these repeated lies about what you have provided.