When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[AAA]

The human body is remarkable, and the Appendix does serve a purpose, which I think that pretty much all doctors would acknowledge. It serves immune functions, and cultivates bacteria that help digest our food. There are books about why the eye has an optimal structure for its function. We are not that vulnerable to many diseases if we take proper care of our body with natural nutrition and exercise. Plenty of herbivores have sharp teeth (panda), yet they eat plants. The universe is mostly unlivable, which shows just how privileged and rare our planet is. We share about as much DNA with mice as we do with chimpanzees, but nobody is saying that we share the most common ancestor with them.

The many people who have their appendix removed do not miss it.  We don't need it for digestion.

Sure if we take proper care of our body.  Too bad your Jesus told people that illness was caused by demons, rather than by germs.  Now there's something that would have been actually useful for a god to relay to his people.  Yet he never did.  Funny.

We still never regenerate, while other animals do.  Why did your god supposedly give this ability to other animals, but not to his beloved humans?

The universe is mostly unlivable.  That doesn't make our planet rare or privileged.  Why did god create such an enormous universe, with so many uninhabitable planets?  There are other planets out there that are inhabitable.  Many of which are beyond our reach.

No, we don't share as much DNA with mice as we do chimpanzees.  We share many of the same genes, as we do with most mammals.  DNA and genes however aren't the same thing.  And this just points to no creator, or an incredibly lazy and incompetent one.

Yeah we don't need the appendix, but it does serve a function. You can also live without your toes, but I think that you would want to keep yours. You can live without your tonsils, but they are still a site for immune cell production. 

If you look at the old testament, many of the instructions would have led to less diseases in the society. Obviously He didn't come right out and say that germs cause it, because this concept would have made no sense to them. There were instructions that would help them stay clean. 

Why don't we regenerate? Why don't we have lasers coming out of our eyes? Why don't we have wings? I don't know the thoughts of the creator, but picking at the design doesn't mean that the design isn't good. 

We share many genes with organisms, but still that 96% similarity you hear about is a very large number of nucleotides. If you were to design multiple vehicles would you use the same basic type of engine on all of them, or would you design an entirely new system every time? It's not lazy or incompetence, it is just common sense and efficiency.

---

Facts do apply. How about we just pick one fact and look at it. All organisms have some ability to organize their DNA. They have proteins that twist and tighten the DNA, which allows very long strands to fit into the cell neatly. This is necessary because long strands of DNA can impair cell functions if they get in the way. The ability to store DNA efficiently would only evolve if the DNA was getting too long for the cell to function. Unfortunately the only way to gain the ability to store DNA is to gain many proteins. These would all require hundreds of additional nucleotides to the genome. Adding new nucleotides would make the problem worse. This would get selected against immediately. You cannot evolve it, because it would make the problem worse unless it appeared in fully functional form. It fits perfectly with the the design theory.

Holy shit dude... tell NASA, now! They're wasting billions on research without the benefit of your insight!



"Researchers have also found all the chemicals needed for life in space, and many of the key building blocks in meteorites and even comets. Amino acids, for instance, were found in samples of the comet Wild 2 after NASA’s Stardust spacecraft passed through the comet’s dusty coma in 2004, and nucleotides have been discovered by NASA scientists in meteorites. These results from the field of “astrochemistry” have told scientists that the ingredients presumed to be needed for life are actually falling on planets, moons and asteroids everywhere.

How those and other organic compounds might organize into self-replicating forms, and ultimately organisms, has been among the most challenging fields in astrobiology. By both digging into the genetic infrastructure of life as well as trying to recreate it in the laboratory, scientists have pushed back the mystery of life’s origins to an early RNA world and even a pre-RNA world. But the process through which non-living substances took on the attributes of life remains elusive."

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/about/hist...robiology/

There's also a documentary about it:

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/the-s...n-of-life/

But mainly, I recommend you read any of the Jet Propulsion Lab's articles on the subject, starting here:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-235

I read the article, I haven't watched the video yet. The difference between your interpretation and mine is this. If we do see the building blocks of life so abundantly in the universe, then you seem to think this means that life must develop often. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but if the building blocks of life are so common, then life also should be according to the materialist model. 

When I see the fact that there are building blocks of life out there, I then wonder why there is no other signs of life. It makes abiogenesis even rarer when it doesn't seem to happen anywhere else despite having what it needs. Also discovering acetate in outer space is a small step toward the building blocks of life. The amino acids are more complex than that, and some even require multiple enzymes (made out of the amino acid that needs to be produced by them) in order to synthesize them. Then you have the problem of getting the building blocks to come together, which also requires enzymes. Also I agree that NASA should continue researching, but they may be wasting their money if life really didn't form spontaneously. The more ways they find out life cannot form naturally, the more likely an intelligent causal agent becomes. Do we have to exhaust all possible natural mechanisms before a designer becomes reasonable?