The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Paleophyte]

So HERV are 8% of your genome and you've managed to find a handful that actually do something while the overwhelming majority either have no function or are outright harmful. We'd expect evolution to co-opt a few of them but that's the sort of behaviour that makes your Designer look like an imbecile.

I suggest you take a deep breath and present your arguments objectively

Says the person who called me a liar last post.

But OK:
(1) The Burden of Proof is on the one making the claim.
(2) You claim that the universe is designed.
(3) You have failed to demonstrate design beyond "we don't know what it does yet."
(4) The BoP is not met so your claim may be disregarded.

this ridiculing tone won't help you.

It isn't meant to help me. It's meant to mock you. I couldn't change your mind with an inadvisably applied ice pick. The rest of us know that you're full of shit so we're just going to sit here and point and laugh.

Now let me count your logical fallacies for you:
You are smuggling a straw man here: design is supposed to be perfect, which is not my position, or any theist's position.

Show me where I said design was supposed to be perfect or be shown guilty of using a strawman to argue that I'm using one.

AND you're arguing from ignorance, it turned out there actually is something beneficial about HERV, and it's likely that more benefits will come to light in the future, despite that you're asserting that they have absolutely no function.

It isn't ignorance. We know that the overwhelming majority of HERV don't do anything. They don't transcribe, they don't regulate, they just sit there and take up resources. We know that the majority of HERV that have any effect are detrimental.

You on the other hand are arguing that "it's likely that more benefits will come to light in the future" when you simply cannot know that. It's much more likely that those benefits will be vastly outwheighed by the detrimental effects of HERV that will be discovered in the future. The ignorance is yours.

But my guess would be you're aware of the fallacies you're making, and I am beginning to smell dishonesty.

That'd be the bullshit you're full of.

No, I'm arguing that the bulk of the genome is apparently useless rubbish

Bold mine. You deny arguing from the appearance of design to infer actual design. At the same time you have no problem arguing from an apparently functionless part of genome.
So, once again, you're arguing from ignorance.

Quote in context SVP. I was stating that it is your job as claimant to show the appearance of design where no such appearance is evident.

. It's easy to understand how this would come about through purely natural processes. 4 billion years of unguided evolution is going to be a smidge untidy. If you're claiming Design then the Burden of Proof is on you to show why this unholy mess of a genome should be regarded as Designed rather than the nasty looking accident that it pretty clearly is.

Such a good-looking strawman you have there. Why are you instructing the designer not to operate through natural selection ?

Your strawman is another strawman. I'm not telling any designer to do anything. I'd be an odd atheist to be talking to Gawd now wouldn't I? I'm telling you to meet your BoP. Stop your dodging and hop to it. No progress was made this post. I expect even less next post.

And one more thing: you can't explain away the necessity of a conscious designer by invoking accidents

There is neither necessity nor designer when accidents are all that are evident.

PS: Try reading the title that you gave this thread to understand my amusement with your antics.