DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[robvalue]

Yes, we've covered the theological "implications". You're delivering a threat from a mob boss. Fall in line, or be annihilated. It shows how your own position is one of fear.

Clearly these threats are having absolutely no effect on anyone here. It's not just that you're essentially waving around a toy gun at us, it's that many of us would prefer annihilation than an eternity in the company of this mob boss anyhow.

What do you think you're achieving by endlessly repeating yourself? Are you trying to numb our brains into submission?

[CDF47]

Keep trying to mimic Dawkins like his puppet.

Not mimicing Dawkins Mr Inquisition.  Just stating bald fact.

When you adopt the position of "I'm too incurious to examine the evidence, therefore goddidit", you have to expect that reasonable people will laugh at you.  Because there's no other sane option than derision and ridicule.

LOL.  I have deeply examined the evidence and it totally points to a Designer.

---

Yes, we've covered the theological "implications". You're delivering a threat from a mob boss. Fall in line, or be annihilated. It shows how your own position is one of fear.

Clearly these threats are having absolutely no effect on anyone here. It's not just that you're essentially waving around a toy gun at us, it's that many of us would prefer annihilation than an eternity in the company of this mob boss anyhow.

What do you think you're achieving by endlessly repeating yourself? Are you trying to numb our brains into submission?

Just replying to some of the posts on here.

[robvalue]

For there to be evidence, there must be a falsifiable hypothesis. That's how science works. Otherwise, you're just pointing at things and claiming they back up your position.

[Amarok]

Keep trying to mimic Dawkins like his puppet.

Not mimicing Dawkins Mr Inquisition.  Just stating bald fact.

When you adopt the position of "I'm too incurious to examine the evidence, therefore goddidit", you have to expect that reasonable people will laugh at you.  Because there's no other sane option than derision and ridicule.

Pretty much when all the smoke and mirrors of ID newspeak is stripped away what response is their other then ridicule .As it is the only reasonable response .

And it's ironic that the man who essentially does nothing but brainlessly repeat ID propaganda and does a poor man's impression Meyers has the balls to say we don't think for ourselves or are puppets.

. when it comes to explaining the Cambrian explosion, Darwin's Doubt is compromised by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge, his "god of the gaps" approach, and selective scholarship that appears driven by his deep belief in an explicit role of an intelligent designer in the history of life.

Review of Meyers book Darwin's Doubt  in magazine Science

[CDF47]

Not mimicing Dawkins Mr Inquisition.  Just stating bald fact.

When you adopt the position of "I'm too incurious to examine the evidence, therefore goddidit", you have to expect that reasonable people will laugh at you.  Because there's no other sane option than derision and ridicule.

Pretty much when all the smoke and mirrors of ID newspeak is stripped away what response is their other then ridicule .As it is the only reasonable response .

And it's ironic that the man who essentially does nothing but brainlessly repeat ID propaganda and does a poor man's impression Meyers has the balls to say we don't think for ourselves or are puppets.

. when it comes to explaining the Cambrian explosion, Darwin's Doubt is compromised by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge, his "god of the gaps" approach, and selective scholarship that appears driven by his deep belief in an explicit role of an intelligent designer in the history of life.

Review of Meyers book Darwin's Doubt  in magazine Science

Yeah, who was the reviewer, another sock puppet talking head?

[Amarok]

LOL.  I have deeply examined the evidence and it totally points to a Designer

No you have not .You have simply repeated empty ID talking points feed to you by ID propagandists . Ignore every response by simply restating the talking point as if it had not been shown in error . Then resort to fallacious reasoning with insistence you made a point when you didn't .And round and round you go .

---

Yeah, who was the reviewer, another sock puppet talking head?

Science Magazine reviewer and Author and Chair in Paleontology, Director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and Chair of the Berkeley Natural History Museums  Charles R. Marshall  is a taking head ?. Lol your sir are delusional . But of course your going to say he's biased or some shit you have to to preserve the lie . A wonder how you'll dismiss the dozens of other negative reviews it got ?Oh wait 





Oh and before you go posting Meyers response in desperate hopes of making the scary facts go away . He never deals with Marshall's main argument and instead attacks minor details. Typical Meyers .

[pocaracas]

I spent the time to read every response to my posts.  Not one even came close to explaining where the information bearing properties of DNA come from.  DNA contains a highly sophisticated "functional" code which encodes for proteins and directs protein synthesis.  It is information processing at its best.  No one can come close to refuting these truths because they are irrefutable but nice attempts using cheap debating tricks and slander.

And there you go...
I take the time to respond and you do this.
That's why you get treated like cancer. No respect for anything. Just blanket dismissal of people's attempts to provide you with some enlightenment.... and repeat ad nauseum of the same old thing: "I can't understand how this happened naturally, so god-did-it", well, like I said on my very first reply to you, you are presenting an argument from ignorance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
""is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is either true or false because of lack or absence of evidence or proof to the contrary. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false."""


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...-Ignorance
""The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”""

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"" a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence. ""


https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.100...-15013-0_3
""Typically, this argument involves a single premise to the effect that there is no evidence / proof / knowledge that x is true. From this premise is drawn the conclusion that x is false. Logicians of a traditional bent have been loathed to accept that anything of merit can be inferred from a lack of evidence or knowledge in argument. However, when construed as a presumptive argument, it is claimed that the argument from ignorance confers significant gains on the public health deliberations of cognitive agents.""

Do you get it now?

[ignoramus]

Poca, he's a broken record ... In particular, this one.

[CDF47]

LOL.  I have deeply examined the evidence and it totally points to a Designer

No you have not .You have simply repeated empty ID talking points feed to you by ID propagandists . Ignore every response by simply restating the talking point as if it had not been shown in error . Then resort to fallacious reasoning with insistence you made a point when you didn't .And round and round you go .

---

Yeah, who was the reviewer, another sock puppet talking head?

Science Magazine reviewer and Author and Chair in Paleontology, Director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and Chair of the Berkeley Natural History Museums  Charles R. Marshall  is a taking head ?. Lol your sir are delusional . But of course your going to say he's biased or some shit you have to to preserve the lie . A wonder how you'll dismiss the dozens of other negative reviews it got ?Oh wait 





Oh and before you go posting Meyers response in desperate hopes of making the scary facts go away . He never deals with Marshall's main argument and instead attacks minor details. Typical Meyers .

Biased. Any scientist or engineer that has a basic understanding of how DNA works should believe it was designed. If not, they should have their degrees burnt and all licenses revoked.

[Minimalist]

I spent the time to read every response to my posts.  Not one even came close to explaining where the information bearing properties of DNA come from.  DNA contains a highly sophisticated "functional" code which encodes for proteins and directs protein synthesis.  It is information processing at its best.  No one can come close to refuting these truths because they are irrefutable but nice attempts using cheap debating tricks and slander.

Do you understand what the Argument from Personal Incredulity means?





It's a 1,500 year penalty.  Go back to the dark ages.

And take your fucking bible with you.