Youwerecreated
VIP Member
- Nov 29, 2010
- 13,273
- 165
- 83
And here again we see the desperation that haunts the Christian fundie. He has no answer to some rather basic questions defining the poverty of his argument and is left to stagger and reel instead of responding with a relevant post.You're having difficulty defining your own argument. Your desperate efforts to bludgeon others with the circular reference about your gawds, "digital code" and an imagined designer are no less vague, discontinuous and contrived now than they were before.
Ironically, the very science you despise has actually expanded our knowledge about another of the intricate building blocks of life. Through ingenuity and the formidable power of science, what was once only a hypothesis is now understandable. The mumbo jumbo of "the gawds did it" falls further and further into the dustbin of fear and superstition.
Your refusal to address your need to make some connection between your alleged "designer" gawds and your fallacious connection between DNA requiring your "designer" gawds is glaring but not unexpected. Simply copying and pasting christian creationist slogans used by Meyer and the Disco'tute is a poor substitute for a comprehensive description of "the gawds did it". As is typical of the christian zealot, you're forced to defend your claims with angry denials, with lashing out and with bad analogies that only parrot the creationist ministry politburo party line.
That's all well and good but you never clarified YOUR specific reasons you believe binary computer code can't be compared to the digital code in dna. Still waiting.
You avoid questions by accusations that miss their mark.