Programming of Life - Intelligent Design

[Radrook]

The video disproves intelligent design. It is self explanatory.

Quite to the contrary. It would take a great effort at ignoring all the evidence or glibly tagging it as none evidence and then substituting an atheist motivated agenda explanation in order to do such a thing.

 

[bhsmte]

Quite to the contrary. It would take a great effort at ignoring all the evidence or glibly tagging it as none evidence and then substituting an atheist motivated agenda explanation in order to do such a thing.

Nope. As he said, the video is self explanatory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The video is self explanatory.

Yes, but how does it align with your view of ID, is what I asked.

 

[Loudmouth]

Quite to the contrary. It would take a great effort at ignoring all the evidence or glibly tagging it as none evidence and then substituting an atheist motivated agenda explanation in order to do such a thing.

Once again with the "I can't see the evidence that disproves ID/Creationism". I can't cure your blindness for you.

 

[Radrook]

Yes, but how does it align with your view of ID, is what I asked.

How do you propose that it doesn't align with a view of an intelligent designer?

 

[Loudmouth]

How do you propose that it doesn't align with a view of an intelligent designer?

It is self evident, but you are too blind to see it.

 

[Radrook]

It is self evident, but you are too blind to see it.

That's called projection of the following:
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Loudmouth]

That's called projection of the following:
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia

 

[Radrook]

NOTHING disproving that our conclusion in reference to DNA is unjustifiable has so far been offered.
Sarcasm, silly diagrams and mutual backslapping are totally irrelevant to the issues involved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

NOTHING disproving that our conclusion in reference to DNA is unjustifiable has so far been offered.
Sarcasm, silly diagrams and mutual backslapping are totally irrelevant to the issues involved.

How could it be disproved?

If you refuse to tell us how it works, and thus how it could be disproved, then how are we supposed to know what would disprove it?

It's kind of hard to try and disprove something, when you don't know what exactly you are supposed to be disproving...

 

[Loudmouth]

NOTHING disproving that our conclusion in reference to DNA is unjustifiable has so far been offered.
Sarcasm, silly diagrams and mutual backslapping are totally irrelevant to the issues involved.

To test your claim, you would actually need to present some evidence.

 

[Radrook]

To test your claim, you would actually need to present some evidence.

Already have.

 

[Loudmouth]

Already have.

Post number?

 

[Radrook]

Claiming inability to see proves only the stubborn reluctance to see and nothing more.

 

[Loudmouth]

Claiming inability to see proves only the stubborn reluctance to see and nothing more.

Where can I see your description of this evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Hilarious!

 

[Speedwell]

Where can I see your description of this evidence?

The video describes it completely and succinctly at 0:50. They don't have anything else.

 

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Closed at OP request.