(December 28, 2018 at 7:16 pm)CDF47 Wrote: The functional information is the proof. That code could not have arisen from natural processes.
Again, this is an argument from incredulity and is a known faulty kind of argument, or fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy
Were you to read the book I advised you to read, you'd maybe understand better how that complex code could have arisen naturally.
But you choose to remain ignorant of that and to continue producing this fallacy.
Which brings us to the real question here: why?
Why do you persist with a fallacious argument?
Why do you insist on being ignorant?
Why don't you think and reason that maybe what several of us have repeatedly told you is true (that your argument is fallacious) and that maybe you have either been deceived, or managed to deceive yourself on this subject?
Why, CDF, why?