DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I don't need you to educate me, nor did I ask.  If someone makes a claim, they should support it.  If you want to help them, that's your choice.  If you don't care to, and they don't, then I don't care either.  Not going on a hunt for information people claim exists if they don't even know where it exists.

Maybe I'm trying to educate you on the subject of evolution, because that was the claim? That evolution works and can provide a satisfactory explanation for how a self-replicating structure is also responsible for putting together a few proteins that enable it to perform that self-replication in ever more efficient ways?

Honestly, I no longer remember what the claim was... you manage to argue with people in such a way that it all gets lost in a swarm of useless words.
To prove this point, you're going to address this last phrase, while ignoring the question marks above where I basically ask (like many have) "what was the claim that you want proof for?"
And, just because I pointed it out, now you're going to do exactly that.
And, because I now added this, you might just decide to ignore this whole post.

Best of luck with that!

Has nothing to do with me.  I just want the "facts."  If people claim something, then run around in circles with what they claimed, then that's on them.  Not going to dig through thousands of journal articles because others choose to make claims based on information they don't have, don't know where to find it, and believe blindly because someone told them to.
If someone says such and such happened, provide a citation, the source is credible, then I believe them.  If it gets more complicated than that, it's beyond my interest.  Either something is or isn't.  If not, it gets filed under the "I dunno" and I move on to something else.

I will be fair and say you usually do provide sources, and it's always appreciated.

---

[quote pid='1879124' dateline='1548193299']
...Nothing can falsify...

---

No, nothing can falsify it.

---

I think maybe you're both confusing each other.  He's suggesting something partially, but your conclusions are kinda "out there" too.

I don't want to speak for him, but looking at it based on what I know so far is him trying to say that the way DNA works as a code couldn't have happened without intelligent input.    In other words, the design of the code proves a Designer.

 

It's the "Nothing can falsify it" bit where CDF47 jumps the shark, M4X.
Though bravo for padding up and stepping onto the crease for CDF47.
Rather sad that he's already swung his bat back through the stumps.
Still... we'll see how long the thread continues to run.
[/quote]

I don't favor him over you,  if that's what you're suggesting.  I favor what is understood.  If you provide it, then no reason to disagree.

When someone says "Nothing can falsify it", then to me there are three reasonable approaches to it.

- You disagree and you falsify it if you feel you can
- You agree
- You disregard and ignore

If you just keep arguing about it, you'll just fuel it all the more.  As an onlooker, that's what I'm seeing.  Telling him he is wrong, but you keep nipping at it.