10 Syllogistic arguments for Gods existence

[Pat Mustard]

1. Being cannot come from non-being
2. Who created the creator
3. The laws of physics point to a creator
4. Fine-tuning of the universe points to a fine-tuner
5. Abiogenesis research has failed
6. The factory maker argument
7. Cells are irreducibly complex
8. Where do complex organisms come from?
9. Gene regulatory networks (dGRN's)  point to design
10. The tasks performed by the dGRN point to intelligent setup

I'm not even going to bother watching the idiot video because if the summaries you've plagarised are accurate, there's nothing that hasn't been disproven already on these fora in it.

1) That is an assertion, not proven.
2) Yes, if your teleological arguments are valid, who did create the creator? That question is not a point in your favour, I may add. Turtles all the way down causes more problems than it solves.
3) Assertion. If anything, what we understand of the universe (there are no laws of physics, that is outdated Newtonian thinking, based on the idea of a clockwork universe), points towards the non-existence of a creator being, and definitely to the non-necessity of such a being. Therefore using William of Ockham as our guide, we can safely disregard the god assertion until provided with contrary evidence.
4) a) Define fine turning, b) prove that the universe is fine tuned. It may surprise you to hear this, but the fact isn't that the universe was created to fit us, but rather that we, as part of the universe and generated within its conditions, are evolved to fit within a very small part of it, at a certain point in time*.
5) No it hasn't. Miller-Urey proved that abiogenesis can occur, it's just that we don't know the exact mechanism for abiogenesis on Earth, largely because we cannot properly create the early Earth conditions.
6) My guess this is either Paley's Watch or Hoyle's Jumbo Jet. While we can forgive the good (and he was truly good, being pretty much revolutionary in how the church and the state should help everybody, anticipating the modern social-democratic state in many ways) reverend his faux pas because he lived in an era before Darwin, Mendel, Crick, Watson or any of the many others who helped develop modern evolutionary theory, Hoyle's gaff was very much in the "I can't understand X therefore nobody else can", despite plenty of people understanding perfectly well and providing evidence. While you cannot develop a complex organism from shit, evolutionary theory doesn't specify that method. It is a gradual sifting of mutations, adaptations, recombinations and epigenetic changes within related organisms over many generations, through validating their fit against the organisms' environment, leading to the good changes largely being retained and expanded and the bad changes being discarded. It's the biological equivalent of the actual technological process which lead from iron chariots to the Concorde, although without conscious direction.
7) No it is not. Even Michael Behe the proposer of the nonsense of irreducible complexity has admitted under oath that it doesn't exist. Google Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
8) Evolution from less complex organisms.
9) No they don't. This is another case of "I don't understand X, therefore goddidit!"
10) See 9.

Again, please stop with the plagarising, either come up with your own nonsense, or properly attribute the nonsense of others.

---

<snipping the bullshit>

So to "support" your argument you quote mine from three eminent scientists who accept evolution, but who are trying to figure out ways of better understanding it, and proposing new hypotheses regarding abiogenesis (which may or may not be wrong). The fourth is an idiot who has been amply demonstrated to know sweet Fanny Adams about biology, never mind evolution.

Otangelo, if you were a moral being, you'd be ashamed of yourself for such shameless and blatant lying and libel.