DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Bucky Ball]

A mountain of evidence is provided throughout this thread starting on page 1.

Too bad for you, if what is presented as "evidence" is not accepted as evidence, it's worthless. 
Your evidence is worthless. It's why there are specific "rules of evidence" for specific situations, and peer-review.

In light of your lightning bolt nonsense, it's now less than worthless. 

You do realize that if your deity did something to change the course of the lightning bolt, it would have had to change the values of the quantum structure of the entire universe ?
You really think YOU are that important ? (Look up the Pauli Exclusion Principle). 
LOL

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Derp. Round-n-Round

[CDF47]

A mountain of evidence is provided throughout this thread starting on page 1.

I pointed out quite clearly why that wasn't evidence for what you claimed two posts ago.  If you're too stupid to understand it, or too intellectually dishonest to reply to the arguments, then maybe you shouldn't post anymore until you are.  You've provided jack shit in terms of evidence for your claim that the information could not have arisen through natural means.  The "can't" there is the critical part.  Even if I were being generous, one could only conclude based upon what you've provided that it is unlikely that natural means could produce such information, not that they "can't" produce it.  When it is rephrased that way, one has to ask what the reason for its apparent unlikelihood is?  And the answer to that is that we don't yet possess an impeccable chain of evidence linking the dirt to microbes to man story.  But we don't need to have such an impeccable explanation for two reasons.  First, the assertion that nature can't do it because it's unlikely to do it is fallacious, what is likely does not inform what is possible.  The second is that the assessment of its likelihood is based upon the absence of knowledge -- namely the lack of an impeccable explanation -- and so that assessment is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, and so the conclusion doesn't follow.  We can't know things simply based upon the things we don't know.  That's simply faulty reasoning.  Yet that has been your repeated basis for the claims that you have made.

So, again, provide some actual, positive evidence that natural means "can't" produce this information instead of this weak sauce shit about, "we don't know, therefore God!"  That's a fallacious argument to its core, yet that is all that you've provided.  So I'll say it again, provide some evidence of your claim that natural means "can't" produce complex information or shut the fuck up with these repeated lies about what you have provided.

I believe you are blind to the truth if you don't realize the functional information in DNA is designed.  Let alone the molecular machines found in the cell.

---

A mountain of evidence is provided throughout this thread starting on page 1.

Too bad for you, if what is presented as "evidence" is not accepted as evidence, it's worthless. 
Your evidence is worthless. It's why there are specific "rules of evidence" for specific situations, and peer-review.

In light of your lightning bolt nonsense, it's now less than worthless. 

You do realize that if your deity did something to change the course of the lightning bolt, it would have had to change the values of the quantum structure of the entire universe ?
You really think YOU are that important ? (Look up the Pauli Exclusion Principle). 
LOL

Messing with the quantum structure of the universe is nothing for Him.  He is all powerful.

[Bucky Ball]

Derp.  Round-n-Round

Thanks for demonstrating yet again, you lack even a rudimentary ability to deal with anything discussed here, Mr. "That's-Just-Your-Opinion". 
LMAO

Be sure mommy knows you're playing with her computer again.

[Angrboda]

I pointed out quite clearly why that wasn't evidence for what you claimed two posts ago.  If you're too stupid to understand it, or too intellectually dishonest to reply to the arguments, then maybe you shouldn't post anymore until you are.  You've provided jack shit in terms of evidence for your claim that the information could not have arisen through natural means.  The "can't" there is the critical part.  Even if I were being generous, one could only conclude based upon what you've provided that it is unlikely that natural means could produce such information, not that they "can't" produce it.  When it is rephrased that way, one has to ask what the reason for its apparent unlikelihood is?  And the answer to that is that we don't yet possess an impeccable chain of evidence linking the dirt to microbes to man story.  But we don't need to have such an impeccable explanation for two reasons.  First, the assertion that nature can't do it because it's unlikely to do it is fallacious, what is likely does not inform what is possible.  The second is that the assessment of its likelihood is based upon the absence of knowledge -- namely the lack of an impeccable explanation -- and so that assessment is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, and so the conclusion doesn't follow.  We can't know things simply based upon the things we don't know.  That's simply faulty reasoning.  Yet that has been your repeated basis for the claims that you have made.

So, again, provide some actual, positive evidence that natural means "can't" produce this information instead of this weak sauce shit about, "we don't know, therefore God!"  That's a fallacious argument to its core, yet that is all that you've provided.  So I'll say it again, provide some evidence of your claim that natural means "can't" produce complex information or shut the fuck up with these repeated lies about what you have provided.

I believe you are blind to the truth if you don't realize the functional information in DNA is designed.  Let alone the molecular machines found in the cell.

You can believe whatever the hell floats your boat. What you can't do is simply claim that I am wrong in my assessment of your evidence without giving a reason for your disagreement with that assessment. This makes twice that you've failed to do so, and without any evidence for it, claimed that I am denying or otherwise unable to see the truth. If you're not going to stand behind the evidence and your arguments, and reply to rebuttals of that evidence, then why are you wasting everybody's time here? Provide either, a) a reason why my assessment of the insufficiency of your evidence is wrong, or, b) actual evidence that isn't hobbled by these failings. If you're not going to do either, I could give a flying fuck what you choose to "believe" because what you believe isn't based on reason. If you're simply asserting things that you believe but do not have good reason for believing, then you are the worst sort of religious troll, someone who simply comes to ignorantly spout irrational beliefs with nothing to back them up. Are you such a troll? So far you've repeatedly asserted that you aren't. If not, then it's time for you to put up or shut up. Either show that my rejection of your "evidence" is ill-founded, meaning actually explain what is wrong with my reasoning, or provide some evidence that avoids the criticism of the evidence you think you've already provided. Failure to do one or the other and simply repeating that I am either blind or in denial is simply admitting that you are indeed such a troll. Are you admitting that you're such a troll? If not, then get to work, slacker.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

Derp.  Round-n-Round

Thanks for demonstrating yet again, you lack even a rudimentary ability to deal with anything discussed here, Mr. "That's-Just-Your-Opinion". 
LMAO

Be sure mommy knows you're playing with her computer again.

Tis your opinion.   Valuable to you and others you can impress with it.  Other than that, just more pseudo crapola as per your usual statements.

[CDF47]

I believe you are blind to the truth if you don't realize the functional information in DNA is designed.  Let alone the molecular machines found in the cell.

You can believe whatever the hell floats your boat.  What you can't do is simply claim that I am wrong in my assessment of your evidence without giving a reason for your disagreement with that assessment.  This makes twice that you've failed to do so, and without any evidence for it, claimed that I am denying or otherwise unable to see the truth.  If you're not going to stand behind the evidence and your arguments, and reply to rebuttals of that evidence, then why are you wasting everybody's time here?  Provide either, a) a reason why my assessment of the insufficiency of your evidence is wrong, or, b) actual evidence that isn't hobbled by these failings.  If you're not going to do either, I could give a flying fuck what you choose to "believe" because what you believe isn't based on reason.  If you're simply asserting things that you believe but do not have good reason for believing, then you are the worst sort of religious troll, someone who simply comes to ignorantly spout irrational beliefs with nothing to back them up.  Are you such a troll?  So far you've repeatedly asserted that you aren't.  If not, then it's time for you to put up or shut up.  Either show that my rejection of your "evidence" is ill-founded, meaning actually explain what is wrong with my reasoning, or provide some evidence that avoids the criticism of the evidence you think you've already provided.  Failure to do one or the other and simply repeating that I am either blind or in denial is simply admitting that you are indeed such a troll.  Are you admitting that you're such a troll?  If not, then get to work, slacker.

Slacker??? I provided mountains of evidence in this thread for 1100 pages.  Not sure what more to add.  I spent much my life pondering these questions and didn't find the answer until I found DNA and the universe fine-tuning.

[Angrboda]

You can believe whatever the hell floats your boat.  What you can't do is simply claim that I am wrong in my assessment of your evidence without giving a reason for your disagreement with that assessment.  This makes twice that you've failed to do so, and without any evidence for it, claimed that I am denying or otherwise unable to see the truth.  If you're not going to stand behind the evidence and your arguments, and reply to rebuttals of that evidence, then why are you wasting everybody's time here?  Provide either, a) a reason why my assessment of the insufficiency of your evidence is wrong, or, b) actual evidence that isn't hobbled by these failings.  If you're not going to do either, I could give a flying fuck what you choose to "believe" because what you believe isn't based on reason.  If you're simply asserting things that you believe but do not have good reason for believing, then you are the worst sort of religious troll, someone who simply comes to ignorantly spout irrational beliefs with nothing to back them up.  Are you such a troll?  So far you've repeatedly asserted that you aren't.  If not, then it's time for you to put up or shut up.  Either show that my rejection of your "evidence" is ill-founded, meaning actually explain what is wrong with my reasoning, or provide some evidence that avoids the criticism of the evidence you think you've already provided.  Failure to do one or the other and simply repeating that I am either blind or in denial is simply admitting that you are indeed such a troll.  Are you admitting that you're such a troll?  If not, then get to work, slacker.

Slacker??? I provided mountains of evidence in this thread for 1100 pages.  Not sure what more to add.  I spent much my life pondering these questions and didn't find the answer until I found DNA and the universe fine-tuning.

Not finding an answer and on that basis concluding something else is an argument from ignorance and is an invalid way to reach a conclusion, as has already been pointed out to you several times recently, and many times over the course of this thread.  Do you have any actual, VALID evidence for your claim that this information could not exist by dint of natural means alone? I have multiple times in the past few days explained why what you have provided isn't evidence for what you have claimed. If you don't have a valid issue with my arguments about your evidence, then simply repeating your ill-founded belief that what you have provided is evidence simply demonstrates your incompetence. You were given two clear options in my last post. Instead of choosing either, you instead simply choose to repeat your bullshit claim. Nobody gives a rat's ass what you claim if you cannot back that claim up with reason. Repeating your assertion is NOT backing it up with reason, it's just more irrational assertion.

I'm going to keep repeating the question until you either put up or shut up.

[Bucky Ball]

Thanks for demonstrating yet again, you lack even a rudimentary ability to deal with anything discussed here, Mr. "That's-Just-Your-Opinion". 
LMAO

Be sure mommy knows you're playing with her computer again.

Tis your opinion.   Valuable to you and others you can impress with it.  Other than that, just more pseudo crapola as per your usual statements.

Get back to your prayers, Bozo. Jebus wants to talk to you.

[Angrboda]

Tis your opinion.   Valuable to you and others you can impress with it.  Other than that, just more pseudo crapola as per your usual statements.

Get back yo your prayers, Bozo. Jebus wants to talk to you.