DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

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.

I believe you are blind to the truth if you don't realize the functional information in DNA is designed.  Let alone the molecular machines found in the cell.

You can believe whatever the hell floats your boat. What you can't do is simply claim that I am wrong in my assessment of your evidence without giving a reason for your disagreement with that assessment. This makes twice that you've failed to do so, and without any evidence for it, claimed that I am denying or otherwise unable to see the truth. If you're not going to stand behind the evidence and your arguments, and reply to rebuttals of that evidence, then why are you wasting everybody's time here? Provide either, a) a reason why my assessment of the insufficiency of your evidence is wrong, or, b) actual evidence that isn't hobbled by these failings. If you're not going to do either, I could give a flying fuck what you choose to "believe" because what you believe isn't based on reason. If you're simply asserting things that you believe but do not have good reason for believing, then you are the worst sort of religious troll, someone who simply comes to ignorantly spout irrational beliefs with nothing to back them up. Are you such a troll? So far you've repeatedly asserted that you aren't. If not, then it's time for you to put up or shut up. Either show that my rejection of your "evidence" is ill-founded, meaning actually explain what is wrong with my reasoning, or provide some evidence that avoids the criticism of the evidence you think you've already provided. Failure to do one or the other and simply repeating that I am either blind or in denial is simply admitting that you are indeed such a troll. Are you admitting that you're such a troll? If not, then get to work, slacker.