DNA Code Indicates Creator

[TagliatelliMonster]

You need to define "blind chance" a little better--to make sure that the evolutionary process fits that description

This poster has a really bad track record when it comes to defining the terms he uses.

Ow and by the way:

Just saying...

 

[Mike Lane]

Nature itself is evidence of an intelligent designer. Otherwise it would not display mind. Your claim that blind chance leads to the construction of a brain is preposterous. In fact, that's more ridiculous than abiogenesis itself.

No it's not, nature is evidence of nature making pixies that live at the bottom of every garden and in every window box in the world, everyone knows that.

 

[Radrook]

Is that video evidence for all creator Gods or just the Christian creator God?

Does it mention a god, gods, or a God?

 

[Radrook]

No it's not, nature is evidence of nature making pixies that live at the bottom of every garden and window box in the world, everyone knows that.

Ridicule isn't a rebuttal.

 

[Speedwell]

This poster has a really bad track record when it comes to defining the terms he uses.

Ow and by the way:

View attachment 188770

Just saying...

What? That I should bug off?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What? That I should bug off?

No. I just required an excuse to post the funny screenshot with the funny number.

By all means, carry on!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ridicule isn't a rebuttal.

Says the guy who insists on using ridicule to argue against what he thinks is abiogenesis.

ps: he also doesn't require a "rebuttal" to a non-argument.

 

[Speedwell]

No. I just required an excuse to post the funny screenshot with the funny number.

By all means, carry on!

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!! I didn't notice that. Please, nobody give me any more ratings.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]!! I didn't notice that. Please, nobody give me any more ratings.

To late!

Luckily, I made a screenshot.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does it mention a god, gods, or a God?

As it turns out, yes. Many times.

5 seconds in, it captions a bible verse.
The title of the video asserts that God is the "programmer"
It is posted by a user name "KingJamesBible".

58 seconds in, first "interview". With Ken Ham... of all people.

Credentials: "answers in genesis".

Not bothering to check the rest, but my gut feeling tells me that it doesn't get better.

 

[Mike Lane]

Ridicule isn't a rebuttal.

But it's not ridicule, nature making pixies has as much evidence for their existence as a creator.

 

[Radrook]

But it's not ridicule, nature making pixies has as much evidence for their existence as a creator.

Your analogy is seriously flawed. Inability to detect that it is seriously flawed indicates a need to become familiar with cogent reasoning essential to the scientific method.

 

[KCfromNC]

The natural process of evolution already produces information,

No, not that kind of information. A different kind. Which I'll refuse to define. That way no matter what evidence is produced I can continue to claim that I was talking about something different.

 

[HitchSlap]

Your analogy is seriously flawed. Inability to detect that it is seriously flawed indicates a need to become familiar with cogent reasoning essential to the scientific method.

And the inability to understand one hasn't established how 'mygoddidit' as an hypothesis holds any more sway over purple Tuesday farting pixies did it, indicates a need to become familiar with cogent syllogisms and basic understandings of natural sciences.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nature itself is evidence of an intelligent designer. Otherwise it would not display mind.

You haven't shown that it displays a mind. In fact, you argue constantly that nature is incapable of starting or evolving life.

Your claim that blind chance leads to the construction of a brain is preposterous. In fact, that's more ridiculous than abiogenesis itself.

Argument from incredulity. Are you sure you took those logic classes?

 

[Mike Lane]

Does it mention a god, gods, or a God?

Yes many times.
It's OK to fool yourself into believing something without evidence but not others.

 

[Radrook]

Yes many times.
It's OK to fool yourself into believing something without evidence but not others.

Nahhhhh!

There is plenty of very obvious and exceedingly compelling evidence and claiming that it doesn't exist will NEVER make it go away regardless of how vehemently you and others with an aversion to an intelligent designer might claim that it doesn't. It is what it is amigo. I suggest that you simply accept it and learn to live with it instead of constantly playing the ridiculously hypocritically obvious and totally unconvincing selective blindness game.

 

[Radrook]

You haven't shown that it displays a mind. In fact, you argue constantly that nature is incapable of starting or evolving life.



Argument from incredulity. Are you sure you took those logic classes?

You have your own personal, unique interpretation of the word "shown"? How very convenient!

 

[Loudmouth]

You have your own personal, unique interpretation of the word "shown"? How very convenient!

And you still haven't shown how nature displays a mind. Go figure. All you do is complain that someone would actually ask for evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nahhhhh!

There is plenty of very obvious and exceedingly compelling evidence and claiming that it doesn't exist will NEVER make it go away regardless of how vehemently you and others with an aversion to an intelligent designer might claim that it doesn't. It is what it is amigo. I suggest that you simply accept it and learn to live with it instead of constantly playing the ridiculously hypocritically obvious and totally unconvincing selective blindness game.

Yet another post devoid of evidence.