What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Technical question from the US - how is removing a fence (de-fence) supposed to make anything more secure? :-D

How come you get kudos for this, GoMH, but I get none!

Did you note that earlier on? If so, and I failed to notice, I'm sorry! It's hard to scan every post when on a mobile.

[AAA]

No, actually I don't need to put forward an alternative in order to reject an explanation that doesn't hold up. I don't have to accept an inadequate cause just because it is the only choice. I can rather say I don't know. Better yet, I can use the cause that is adequate: designer. I don't have to prove the inability of gradual processes leading to thousands of specified nucleotides. That is the null hypothesis which we assume to be true. We must then try to support the alternative hypothesis (gradual processes are sufficient). That would be like me telling you to prove that God doesn't exist using repeatable and testable data, which we both agree isn't a fair request. Both theories about the past are impossible to investigate using the conventional scientific empiricism which you are talking about.

If your going to posit a designer as an alternative to evolution, you most certainly must supply evidence. It's called the burden of proof and it's on you.

I don't care if you think it was designed. I care that you realize it didn't get there through mutation. I think that evidence for a designer comes from the specific sequence of characters that must be present in order for it to function. It really is information, which only comes from intelligence

[AAA]

Ok, well then tell me is the formation of a phosphodiester bond a spontaneous reaction?  Yup.
https://www.chem.wisc.edu/deptfiles/genc.../dna13.htm

What about the formation of a peptide bond? Standard chemical bond. No god required

Do you know that amino acids have a chiral carbon, meaning they have stereoisomers? Yes I do thanks.
Did you know that only the L form isomer makes proteins? Yes.

What are the odds that a long polypeptide would form with only the L handedness in nature? No odds required. It just does it. Whatever would come out from a D-handed chiral centre is immaterial. We are talking about the product of an L-Chiral center.

Also I am skeptical that you graduated from a University yet you make such an inaccurate statement as saying that DNA can replicate itself. It replicates itself semi-conservatively.

That is just a blatant lie. You need helicases, single stranded binding proteins, DNA polymerases, ligases, topoisomerases, and many more. Also if you formed DNA and proteins in the lab, then congratulations, you should be up for your nobel prize soon, because you are the first one. Except for Meselson and Stahl, ibid. And they basically sat back and watched it happen of it's own accord.


Also if you graduated in chemistry, then you may know about the catalytic efficiency of enzymes. Some of them are literally kinetically perfect, meaning that they catalyze reactions as fast as reactants diffuse and contact them. Have you ever seen a catalyst that reacts that perfectly? Which ones are perfect? Are they really perfect or just very efficient?

No, there is a difference between them forming in nature and being considered spontaneous. Spontaneous have a negative change in free energy, yet peptide bonds do not. 

And you are misunderstanding the Meselson and Stahl experiment. It still used the enzymes, they just demonstrated that it was semiconservative rather than conservative, nonconservative, or mixed. Semiconservative just means that each new DNA strand contains one original and one new strand. 

And I am holding my biochemistry textbook that says "enzymes that have a kcat/Km ratios at the upper limits have attained kinetic perfection. Their catalytic velocity is restricted only by the rate at which they encounter substrate in the solution." Some that are perfect are acetylcholinesterase, carbonic anydrase, catalase, superoxide dismutase, and there are more listed.

[AAA]

Nothing is outside the universe, by definition.

If we were created, that's one conclusion, although I don't think it's supported. It's another entire non-sequitur to announce that it's most likely a magic being that happens to be the main character in a popular story book. That is what Christians believe, after all. Pretending that has anything to do with science and reason is either incredibly naive or dishonest.

Well I don't agree with your first sentence, and I'm surprised you do. You then have no multiverse to protect from the fine tuning argument.

[AAA]

And you wonder why atheists get their reputation as arrogant and moral-less people.

Hate to break it to you shit face, but your opinion isn't a reputation it's worthless.

If I were another atheist on this forum

You'd be a hell of a lot more intelligent person.

I would be frustrated with you for bringing the rest of them down.

Says the manchild who constantly lies about his qualifications and knowledge on the fora. Protip for you, go take the plank out of your own eye before you try and extract the dustmote from mine.

Why so hateful?  And being an atheist doesn't make you smarter, as you are demonstrating in every one of your replies. I'm not lying about qualifications or knowledge. If you don't believe something that I say fact check it.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Apart from the obvious logical inconsistencies of fine tuning, of course. I don't want to bring up the puddle as an argument of parsimony but fine tuning has been debunked so many times it's not even fun anymore.

And, AAA, if I may, you've still not explained away the argument from incredulity. I believe you may have misappropriated the 'I don't know argument' by adding an additional condition of 'it's certainly not that, but what it is I don't know.'

And before equivocating that argument and a prima facie similarity of the rejection of God theses, I have to say that abiogenesis and evolution beyond do have a wealth of evidence to support them. The creator thesis has only one; personal anecdote and belief.

I'm not even going to argue that you are wrong. I just don't see any reason beyond your belief to believe you are right.

[The Valkyrie]

"It's true because the bible says so!"

"It doesn't matter if science completely disproves the bible, I'll still believe the bible!"

The latter I hear far too often.

[abaris]

I think that evidence for a designer comes from the specific sequence of characters that must be present in order for it to function. It really is information, which only comes from intelligence

So it seems, you believe in a designer of everything. How does that compute with what we know about - let's keep it simple - earths history? How does it compute with approximately 4.5 billion years? How does it add up - again, let's keep it simple - with dinosaurs roaming the land for about 170 million years? Dying out about 65 million years ago. The oldest, and still disputed find of a human relic is 3,2 million years old. So, how does a humanocentric deity fit in that picture?

Unless you deny everything we know.

[Cyberman]

"It doesn't matter if science completely disproves the bible, I'll still believe the bible!"

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

No, there is a difference between them forming in nature and being considered spontaneous. Spontaneous have a negative change in free energy, yet peptide bonds do not. 

And you are misunderstanding the Meselson and Stahl experiment. It still used the enzymes, they just demonstrated that it was semiconservative rather than conservative, nonconservative, or mixed. Semiconservative just means that each new DNA strand contains one original and one new strand. 

And I am holding my biochemistry textbook that says "enzymes that have a kcat/Km ratios at the upper limits have attained kinetic perfection. Their catalytic velocity is restricted only by the rate at which they encounter substrate in the solution." Some that are perfect are acetylcholinesterase, carbonic anydrase, catalase, superoxide dismutase, and there are more listed.

I always love when a low-level amateur tries to lecture the Jet Propulsion Lab's abiogenesis research teams about biochemistry.

They know that's an issue, AAA, and that's why most of the research at the moment seems to point to rock micropores as an "assist" to the process that would normally be difficult or impossible in a free solution.

Regardless, your arguments are still  nothing more than "God of the Gaps" arguments, especially since you're relying on outright lies about information theory upon which to base your argument.

Educate yourself.

Edit to Add: I'm not just being snarky. Evolution is real. It's a thing. Cope with this fact and join us in the real world that does not require magic to exist or function. You people are so exhausting with this "God of the gaps" crap and misleading "just-so" arguments, constantly searching for some tiny fragment of knowledge humanity doesn't have so you can shelter your pathetic little Gawd under that rock. Until the rock gets lifted by new knowledge, in which case you declare, loudly, that god was never under THAT rock (e.g. Geocentrism), but is definitely under that NEXT rock over there, of which we haven't yet seen the underside.