So your an Athiest

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Supposedly this designer could effortlessly confirm his existence to me without relying on you to spread the word.  I'll just be waiting for his call.

Ok, well I don't think that is a valid excuse for disbelief. Let's speak hypothetically and say that when you die and meet God, He asks you why you didn't believe. You're just going to say because you didn't get a call from Him?

Yes. That's almost exactly what I'd say. Asking me to believe based on a single holy book out of thousands penned by humans (as all of them were), especially given that those holy books all contain stuff directly in opposition to what I already know about the real world, and then punishing me if I don't grasp that this one is the One True Holy Book™, means God is a being undeserving of my worship.

If you want an easy example of how I know the ancient Hebrews weren't told about science by God, try reading Genesis Chapter 30, the story of Jacob with Laban's Flocks, and how Jacob was "so wise" that he became wealthy and founded the Hebrew nation.

(I'm assuming you've already studied Lamarckism, the failed idea about plasticity of heritable traits, which Mendel disproved, in your genetics course.)

[AAA]

Ok, well I don't think that is a valid excuse for disbelief. Let's speak hypothetically and say that when you die and meet God, He asks you why you didn't believe. You're just going to say because you didn't get a call from Him?

I'll simply say he never gave me any evidence.

I'll tell you some evidence right now. Information rich sequences in each and every one of us. Universe with precise qualities that allow it to support life. complexity of life that humans can't match. If you don't at least look into these evidences for yourself, I think you are going to be without excuse.

[Silver]

You have to be more open minded than that.

There is nothing open minded about the inability to accept a difference in belief.

I accept that you have a difference in belief, but I am not forcing you in any way to believe as I do. Rather, I provide logic and reason as my arguments. What do you provide? Just believe.

[Mr.wizard]

Your just listing things that already exist and then asserting that there is a designer behind the scenes, your not proving anything.

What counts as proof? Nothing in existence can prove God's existence in your mind, so how do you want me to prove it?

---

Precisely, the dick of a god should have made some sort of effort rather than just us relying upon ignorant and fallible faith.

I don't know what to tell you. You have to be more open minded than that. That is a really simple minded excuse for denying a designer.

Hey man don't ask me for proof of your claim, its your job to make the case for your claim.

[FatAndFaithless]

I'll simply say he never gave me any evidence.

I'll tell you some evidence right now. Information rich sequences in each and every one of us. Universe with precise qualities that allow it to support life. complexity of life that humans can't match. If you don't at least look into these evidences for yourself, I think you are going to be without excuse.

But that's the thing.  That's literally just your bald assertion, coming from a fallible human.  God can tell me that himself if he wanted.  Does he not want me to believe in him?

[Homeless Nutter]

What counts as proof? Nothing in existence can prove God's existence in your mind, so how do you want me to prove it?

Well, that's f***ing convenient, isn't it. Nothing in existence can prove that I am god, so that must mean my claim of divinity is just as valid as your imaginary friend's. Except I can make a claim - your god can't even do that, he has to rely on uneducated, dim-witted peasants to talk for him.

Religions work in EXACTLY the same way as a scam does. You need to believe some dumb c*nt, who has a vested interest in me believing him - and then I can rationalize it, if I need to, by interpreting everything in a way that allows for god. If there is a god that works in that way - he/she/it can go f*** himself, as can all his deluded lackeys.

[Alex K]

Did you then do the calculation of the resulting genetic "drift" in the population over geological time yourself? How did you come to the conclusion that the rate is too low to explain genetic diversity?

Uh, I never mentioned genetic drift directly, or gave a numerical value for it.

You brought up mutation rates when I asked where you got the information that evolution is insufficient, not me.

Also, I never said that the rate is too low to explain genetic diversity. Point mutations simply cannot lead to new functional sequences because they are just the alteration of existing bases.

I'd like to to hear a biologist respond to this, but what is your point here? That it cannot lead to new additional genes because it would replace an old one? But there are not just point mutations, so what is your point?

Also you would have to have many sequential mutations in a row becoming the correct base at one time, and in the correct order with no missing spaces in order to gain a new functional sequence that would be selected for.

What do you mean by becoming the *correct* base? Correct for what?

I have tried to do this calculation and I couldn't find an online calculator that was capable of handling such big odds.

Which calculation exactly?

[AAA]

You have to be more open minded than that.

There is nothing open minded about the inability to accept a difference in belief.

I accept that you have a difference in belief, but I am not forcing you in any way to believe as I do.  Rather, I provide logic and reason as my arguments. What do you provide?  Just believe.

No, you have been conditioned to say that because those are the type of religious people atheists typically have dealt with in the past. I have tried to give reasons why I believe as I do. I have seen nothing logical about your argument. I have barely even seen an argument.

[Silver]

I have seen nothing logical about your argument. I have barely even seen an argument.

With me alone or with atheists in general?

If you choose the secondary, then you are lost.

[AAA]

Uh, I never mentioned genetic drift directly, or gave a numerical value for it.

You brought up mutation rates when I asked where you got the information that evolution is insufficient, not me.

Also, I never said that the rate is too low to explain genetic diversity. Point mutations simply cannot lead to new functional sequences because they are just the alteration of existing bases.

I'd like to to hear a biologist respond to this, but what is your point here? That it cannot lead to new additional genes because it would replace an old one? But there are not just point mutations, so what is your point?

Also you would have to have many sequential mutations in a row becoming the correct base at one time, and in the correct order with no missing spaces in order to gain a new functional sequence that would be selected for.

What do you mean by becoming the *correct* base? Correct for what?

I have tried to do this calculation and I couldn't find an online calculator that was capable of handling such big odds.

Which calculation exactly?

correct base simply meaning the one of the four that yields functionality. The calculation is simply to see if it is reasonable to believe that point mutations could add a new functional sequence. It is essentially  that you have around 100 amino acids in a typical protein. Each amino acid comes from 3 bases. Each base has a 1 in 4 chance of being the one that yields the appropriate amino acid to try to make a functional protein.  These have to all happen in a sequence with no (or very few) misses. 300^1/4 is an oversimplification of the calculation I have tried to do. There are other variables but this is a start.

---

I have seen nothing logical about your argument. I have barely even seen an argument.

With me alone or with atheists in general?

If you choose the secondary, then you are lost.

You alone, but I have not been convinced by the general atheist arguments that I have heard either.