The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

It is math, I don't need to appeal to citations because it is universal. If you don't like the math, then point out where it went wrong. 

It's math based on factual claims about proteins and how they might be derived: your numbers may be right, but that doesn't mean they actually correspond to the real world objects you're making reference to. If I use my own height as a yardstick with which to determine the height of an object, but I also mistakenly think I'm 100 feet tall, then my numbers might be perfectly correct without giving me the actual height of the object.

Additionally, again: do you think that scientists just plum don't have any answers to these contentions?

It doesn't matter if we start with proteins or not, we eventually have to account for there formation.

It matters if your argument is predicated on the idea that each protein must be coded from scratch, rather than building from simpler bases up to modern proteins, which would be a perfectly valid abiogenetic process. Also, you're falling into the same trap AJW did, where you're mistaking "poking a hole in abiogenesis," with "providing evidence for your religious claims."

Also how could we start with something similar? DNA and RNA are going to give you the same problem, only worse, because you have to eventually develop a code for proteins with a specific structure that allows them to interact with the DNA/RNA. Also, even attempts to artificially design RNA that is capable of autocatalysis have failed. The reason I chose protein is that they are necessary in every living system that has ever been observed, so to say that we can start with something simpler is speculation.

Somebody who believes in god has no business appealing to observations to dismiss anyone elses' positions.

I figured we should start with what we know to exist rather than something we don't know existed (a self replicating RNA).

Who even said RNA? The fact is that we don't know how it happened, and yet you're still making assumptions about how it did, while somehow having the wherewithal to suggest that others shouldn't do that. It's a bit breathtaking, actually.

And yes, scientists don't have a counter to this. That why the origin of life issue is so difficult. Most researchers recognize that chance alone is not sufficient. The typical counter is that some simpler self replicating molecules began competing, but these ideas are often vague and chemically impractical. 

Did you ask any scientists, or do any research at all, or is this one of those things where we have to accept "because I said so," as justification?

Also, you saying that I believe a wizard poofed everything into existence is an unfair oversimplification. That would be like me saying that you believe a rock magically turned into a human.

Except that's what the bible says happened: god "spoke" things into existence, which is literally a golem spell. Now, you can interpret that other ways, but the fact is that you've got no other basis for the creation account other than that you look better if you don't ascribe to literal creation.

Oversimplification or not, though, you're still contending with a probability of zero, for god. There's no getting around that, especially given how crazy you are for odds everywhere else.

The factual claims were that most proteins fall in the realm of 100 to a few thousand amino acids and that there are 20 different amino acids used to construct proteins. They are both true. Ask any freshman biology student.

Why is proteins moving from less to more complex/functional a perfectly valid abiogenetic process?

And I said RNA because that is the answer I usually get. It is speculative. It is more speculative than protein, because we don't know that RNA can replicate information, but we know proteins can.