DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Angrboda]

Not finding an answer and on that basis concluding something else is an argument from ignorance and is an invalid way to reach a conclusion, as has already been pointed out to you several times recently, and many times over the course of this thread.  Do you have any actual, VALID evidence for your claim that this information could not exist by dint of natural means alone?  I have multiple times in the past few days explained why what you have provided isn't evidence for what you have claimed.  If you don't have a valid issue with my arguments about your evidence, then simply repeating your ill-founded belief that what you have provided is evidence simply demonstrates your incompetence.  You were given two clear options in my last post.  Instead of choosing either, you instead simply choose to repeat your bullshit claim.  Nobody gives a rat's ass what you claim if you cannot back that claim up with reason.  Repeating your assertion is NOT backing it up with reason, it's just more irrational assertion.

I'm going to keep repeating the question until you either put up or shut up.

The functional information is the proof.  That code could not have arisen from natural processes.  A super-intelligence was involved.  Some people actually think we were seeded here by aliens actually.  I think that is totally false.  An intelligence outside the boundaries of this universe was involved.  From there turn to theology.  I will pray for you.

There is functional information. True. However, your second statement, that this code could not have arisen from natural processes is a claim, and that claim isn't directly supported by the first fact. There being functional information does not necessarily imply that this functional information could not have arisen from natural processes. You've done an admirable job of supporting the first statement. However you've done basically nothing to support the second statement. And that is where the issue lies, because without the second statement, there is no reason to conclude that a god or designer was necessary for this functional information to exist. Simply providing evidence that there is functional information doesn't do that. Additionally, it has been pointed out that functional information, though not DNA, can arise through natural processes. So like any creationist defending a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution, you need to defend that while functional information can arise in other contexts, it supposedly cannot arise in this context. You need to demonstrate some fact which limits the latter case, but not the former. Again, you have not done so. And that is why I labeled you a slacker, because you have demonstrated something about which there is only limited dispute, namely that there exists functional information in DNA, and what that means. However, that fact alone does not get you to the conclusion that a god or designer is necessary, because if there is a natural path to such information, then no god or designer is necessary. Your belief that this functional information could not have arisen through natural means is nothing more than incredulity at the possibility that it could, and an appeal to incredulity is a fallacious and invalid argument. You cannot secure your conclusion that way. You need to provide some actual reason, beyond mere incredulity or an argument from ignorance, as to why that functional information could not have arisen naturally. This you have not done. That is why I keep pointing out that you have not provided evidence for your claim. The claim that there is functional information in DNA is little disputed. What that means for your second claim, that it could not arise naturally, is in great dispute, and it is that second claim which you need to provide evidence for, and for which you have not provided said evidence. Failure to secure and support that second claim means your overall argument, that a god or designer was necessary, would fail. Since it is that overall argument, and not your claim that there is functional information in DNA that is at issue, your securing that fact, and not the second, is of no use to you.