DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Deesse23]

@ Everina (or whatever your name is)… With the designer in mind, are you familiar with the Irish potato famine?
What had the designer got against the Irish. The bastard.

Free will
Somebody needed to learn something
They didnt die, btw., we live forever.
You are stupid, Eve is gifted.
Stupid atheist
Typical atheist
Here, read this totally unrelated article that refutes what i just said



P.S.: 900

[Cod]

@ Everina (or whatever your name is)… With the designer in mind, are you familiar with the Irish potato famine?
What had the designer got against the Irish. The bastard.

Free will
Somebody needed to learn something
They didnt die, btw., we live forever.
You are stupid, Eve is gifted.
Stupid atheist
Typical atheist
Here, read this totally unrelated article that refutes what i just said



P.S.: 900

My money's on a thousand pages before sundown

[I_am_not_mafia]

So 900 pages. Has anyone changed their opinion or gained some new insight yet? Has CDF47's argument changed in any way?

[Bucky Ball]

God is not malevolent. People are malevolent. And only atheists believe in death. We believe in eternal life.

No dumbass. 
Must religionists believe in death, and they certainly don't buy your bat-shit crazy crap that we've always lived. You are totally out of step with almost all religionists. 
And you're 100 % wrong that only atheists "believe" in death. Death is a fact. YOU are going to die, no matter how you LIE to yourself. 
One does not have to believe in death. Any fool knows it's a fact.

There are no gods.
You have no evidence for any.
All you have are very flawed "arguments" for gods.
IF there actually were any, they would obviously be malevolent.
The gods are an ancient explanatory meme slowly going out of fashion.
The more educated people are, the less they believe.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/...e-atheists

[Amarok]

God is not malevolent.

Assertion 

People are malevolent.

 Some are 

And only atheists believe in death. 

False 

We believe in eternal life.

False

---

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010...enes-wrong

Holy hell this article is crap and it doesn't even help her case and Seriously using Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini two fucking philosophers as a source and spewing so many straw men it's not even funny.

---

It's even funnier she thinks epigenetics is even an issue  for evolution let alone natural selection

[Bucky Ball]

That was a quick submission and reveal. Honestly, I had you last a lot longer before revealing the bit but c'est la vie.

She already revealed the fantasy world she cooked up, is her only way she has, to make sense of reality. 

Like many religionists, she has :

low ambiguity tolerance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_...ntolerance
and a high need for cognitive closure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(psychology)

[Anomalocaris]

That was a quick submission and reveal. Honestly, I had you last a lot longer before revealing the bit but c'est la vie.

She already revealed the fantasy world she cooked up, is her only way she has, to make sense of reality. 

Like many religionists, she has :

low ambiguity tolerance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_...ntolerance
and a high need for cognitive closure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(psychology)

Plus a colossal overestimation of her own power of perception, knowledge, social and cognitive skills, total lack of intellectual reserve, honesty or integrity, and complete reliance on fantasy rationalizations and inconsequential past Validations to avoid Confronting the reasons and responsibilities for her currently being “in hell”

[Bucky Ball]

She already revealed the fantasy world she cooked up, is her only way she has, to make sense of reality. 

Like many religionists, she has :

low ambiguity tolerance : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguity_...ntolerance
and a high need for cognitive closure : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(psychology)

And an colossal overestimation of her own power of perception, knowledge, social and cognitive skills, and absolutely no intellectual integrity.

That's true. It has a name also. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect

[Mister Agenda]

Logical fallacy. Strawman argument. The question is not how but why. The options are that either you think we just got lucky to have a planet full of delicious, nutritious, energy providing food for 8.7 million different species of life as well as being lucky by having healing herbs and plants to derive medicines from OR you think it's clear that higher intelligence was involved. There are no other options.

A strawman argument is one in which your argument is misrepresented in order to make it easier to defeat.

Everena: A Strawman argument is when you avoid the question that was asked and deflect by answering a different question. That is exactly what you did and you are now doing it again.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to take your statements seriously, so I'll only respond to this portion of your reply.

Strawman Fallacy - Logically Fallacious
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tool...an_Fallacy
Substituting a person's actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

---

There are wonderful books on these subjects. You don't have to go through life thinking scientists believe that whatever preceded the initial expansion was analogous to a large rock; or that 14 billion years is way too short a time for something like a human to arise by natural causes somewhere in the universe.

We just popped out of nowhere in a meaningless, unguided, and un-created universe over a period of 4.54 billion years on an earth somewhere in the universe?  I'm not buying it.  The evidence points elsewhere.

This is a good example of a strawman argument. We aren't claiming that the universe just popped out of nowhere. It's entirely unclear that there ever was a literal 'nowhere' for it to have popped from. As I said, there are wonderful books on this subject that are quite accessible to the layman and should be a cakewalk for an engineer. You do want to know more, don't you?

---

 Dr.Casey Luskin

The lawyer?

[Peebothuhlu]

So 900 pages. Has anyone changed their opinion or gained some new insight yet? Has CDF47's argument changed in any way?

Uhm....

1) No,
2) No,
And
3) No.

 Pretty sure it's CD47 and Evernena just running in circles.

Though others are posting really naffy information.

 (Over 9000 ! )

Not at work.