The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Can we agree that the DNA mutations are random? If not, what is the source of intelligence that guides them?

"Random/intelligently guided" is a false dichotomy. Something can be non-random while still happening without intelligence. In the case of mutations, each and every mutation happens within the framework of those that came before, which is just an inescapable fact of the mechanism of mutation; those mutations that do arise are transcription errors within an attempt to copy a previous gene sequence. That is a constraint upon mutations that prevents them from being totally random, as is the fact that whatever mutations do occur need to result in a viable offspring, for obvious reasons. You're looking at an unguided process, but not a random one; there are limits to what can happen, and factors shaping the results toward certain goals, as I'll get into more below.

For an organism to evolve from one thing into another, a great many mutations have to occur and a huge number of AAs need to be laid down in specific order. It matters not whether natural selection kills off the weak and enables the strong to survive, that isn't relevant to the total number of attempts required to create the AA sequences in the first place. Natural selection occurs "after the fact" ie after the random mutation of the DNA and assembly of new proteins.

After the fact? Not quite, because you aren't looking at your sample size of organisms at the moment of their conception. No, the fossil record that you see, and those organisms that are alive today, have all been filtered through natural selection before you examine them, and in fact are the result of countless generations being filtered through it. Natural selection acts on populations, and any given specimen you care to point to has had its parents filtered through, and their parents, and so on: the natural selection process has in fact been key to deriving the genes that make up that organism, every time you find one.

I'm not claiming that you can scientifically prove the existence of God. Christianity requires faith, it is not a science.

That said, I believe there is enough evidence in the scripture to show that the Bible was written with specific foreknowledge of future events. So for those who have faith there is evidence of God scattered throughout the pages of the text . For those without faith, it's all gobbledigook.  Some of the codes in the Bible are very compelling to me, but they  are nothing more than random chance to you.

... Even if you could demonstrate foreknowledge- rather than retrofitting the text to present day events, as most theists do- you haven't demonstrated that the specific christian god is the cause of that.

One thing I'll never understand is those who mock God. If there is no God I suppose it doesn't matter, but if there is a God and you mock him, what will be your end?

Do you really think it's okay to threaten people with hell, here? You think that's an apt way to argue?

Besides, if there's a god and I don't believe in him, it doesn't matter if I mock him or not, I'm going to the same place. Your god isn't much for nuance, nor is he particularly creative.

Not exactly. If we look at the definition, evolution doesn't qualify as a science. This became this, which became that which became something else is speculation because it has never been observed. Even when using a lab to try and prove evolution, you are still guessing as to what the conditions were millions of years ago. You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

Evolution has been observed. We use our observations of nature to inform our inferences as to the lineages of organisms in the past; that stuff comes from the fossil record, DNA testing, and morphology, you know. It doesn't actually come straight out of our asses. As I pointed out to you before, science is a probabilistic method of drawing evidence-based inferences: it does not, and has never required, direct observation to qualify as science. For example: the orbital period of Pluto is longer than we've known about Pluto, but we're still able to derive the length of it from the evidence available to us. That knowledge isn't un-science just because we've not directly observed it: the method used to figure it out is valid, and no amount of desperate clinging to solipsism, this claim of yours that nothing is real science unless you see it with your eyeballs, is pathetically childish and completely lacking in any understanding of how science actually works.