Can someone debunk this

[Odoital77]

Odoital77 wrote: Given that I'm typing and communicating in the English language, your statement is clearly false.  So what can I say?

Tizheruk wrote: Then some other malfunction renders you incapable of seeing the obvious . Oh and blind people can write English. And computers can mindlessly type English . So neither of these fact would prove my statement false . But i'll be generous and grant you this .

No, I've seen the obvious, and that was specifically what my commentary was about.  You're the evidence for the very thing I was speaking about.

[pocaracas]

Howabout you read the thread, buddy

Uh, yeah... that was the basis of my commentary.

How, or rather why (because I can see how when I quote you), the heck are you butchering all your quotes?

[Succubus]

Given that I'm typing and communicating in the English language, your statement is clearly false.  So what can I say?

Typing in English yes, communicating, not so much. What the fuck is this word salad?

You are unlikely to receive a genuine debunking or successful refutation.  You are more likely to receive rationalizations and easy dismissals.  Other things implied by what is stated is the idea of purpose and design, things that are foreign to evolution understood and defined within a naturalistic or materialist context.  Purpose and design are the product of mind and intelligence, but that is excluded a priori by naturalistic evolution.  In short, you're not allowed to actually follow the evidence where it leads.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nonsense.  Purpose and design aren't excluded a priori by modern synth.  Artificial selection is a thing.  If you want to insist that some, most, or all evolution is brought about by artificial selection then you could clearly do so within the framework of evolutionary biology.  OFC, you'd actually have to show that this were the case, and it might help if you could demonstrate the intelligence and purpose behind the artificial selection in the first place.

Good luck.

[Cecelia]

What all this shows is that the human body resembles a huge factory made up of many small machines that work together in perfect harmony.  Just as all factories have a designer, an engineer and a planner, the human body has an “Exalted Creator.”

And now to debunk it:

So all factories have a designer, an engineer and a planner?  Yet the human body for all it's supposedly miraculous 'design' only had ONE?  Why doesn't the human body have a designer, an engineer and a planner?  That's three roles, for at least three different people, and presumably it took far more than just three people to design and make a factory.    Yet the same people who make this argument only argue for ONE single creator.    But factories don't just have one creator.  They have many.  So this is, effectively an argument for polytheism, but tries to argue for monotheism.  You can't just say "Well, god did all the parts himself!" because, again, you're using the argument from design.  And using the factory as an example.  One can extrapolate from this that humans had MANY creators.  Meaning there are many creators, and not just one. 

And there's nothing 'exalted' about it either.  Factory creators are often terrible and held in low regard (for example, sweat shops)

So the argument is null and void unless you're arguing for several creators who might or might not be good or evil.  But nobody's arguing for that, therefore it's null and void.

[Amarok]

No, I've seen the obvious, and that was specifically what my commentary was about. 

No your comment was about your flawed belief you had seen the obvious .

 You're the evidence for the very thing I was speaking about.

My comment was about your flawed believe you had seen the obvious? Glad we agree.

[Edwardo Piet]

I always say that an invalid argument doesn't need refuting and invalid evidence doesn't need debunking.

[KevinM1]

The whole thing boils down to "complexity is difficult/hard/scary/whatever, and thus could not have happened naturally." An argument from incredulity stemming from ignorance is fallacious.

[LadyForCamus]

Huggy, did you even read the article you linked to?  Talk about a lack of critical thinking skills, lol.

Says the person who thought abiogenesis had been reproduced under laboratory conditions...

I linked two articles btw, If you have a point to make, then make it.

---

So that's your big come back .Not the fact it already addresses and refutes each point you put up . Just scream it doesn't agree with you so it's not objective . And your articles are the peak of objectivity .The first a site that promotes Alt med quackery . The other so full of  Anti GMO vitriol i can just see the foam forming at the corners of the writers mouth as he wrote it.  So fuck off with pretending your objective.

*emphasis mine*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebMD

WebMD is best known as a health information services website, which publishes content regarding health and health care topics, including a symptom checklist, pharmacy information, drugs information, blogs of physicians with specific topics, and providing a place to store personal medical information. URAC, the Utilization Review Accreditation Commission, has accredited WebMD’s operations continuously since 2001 regarding everything from proper disclosures and health content to security and privacy.

WebMD offers services to physicians and private clients. For example, they publish WebMD the Magazine, a patient-directed publication distributed bimonthly to 85 percent of physician waiting rooms. Medscape is a professional portal for physicians with 30 medical specialty areas and more than 30 physician discussion boards. WebMD Health Services provides private health management programs and benefit decision-support portals to employers and health plans.

Promoting "alt med" quackery indeed...

I already made it, buddy.  ❤️

[Amarok]

Promoting "alt med" quackery indeed...

Yup Alt med quackery . Or are you saying mainstream publications can't promote crap and should swallowed hook line and sinker  ? Also love that that's what you focused on once rather then defending the article or refuting mine.

---

Says the person who thought abiogenesis had been reproduced under laboratory conditions.

Says the man who continually promotes crap . And has a simplistic cartoon view of science .

---

Says the person who thought abiogenesis had been reproduced under laboratory conditions...

I linked two articles btw, If you have a point to make, then make it.

---

*emphasis mine*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebMD

Promoting "alt med" quackery indeed...

I already made it, buddy.  ❤️

Umm what?