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

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I would recommend you actually read up on evolution and biology before trumpeting you ignorance in a public forum. It's painfully obvious you know jack shit about either.

I love biology, and I know how it works. It's not that I don't understand them, it is that mutation is inadequate to account for the phenomena in the cell. It's easy to just tell me I know nothing, but you didn't answer the question. Because I think you know if you say yes you will be admitting to accepting the mathematically impossible.

It isn't biology which you know anything of. Please stop insulting science with your theosophic, and uber sophistic substitutions. When you don't know jack, you have no right to weigh in on what is or isn't possible! You, Behe, and the few other quacks with false resumes and think they know better than all of the world's top scientists walk like ducks, you quack like ducks, and what you need right now is:




The following are not scientific, but they are infinitely closer to it than any monotheism:

[AAA]

I love biology, and I know how it works. It's not that I don't understand them, it is that mutation is inadequate to account for the phenomena in the cell. It's easy to just tell me I know nothing, but you didn't answer the question. Because I think you know if you say yes you will be admitting to accepting the mathematically impossible.

"Mathematically impossible?" You obviously know little to nothing about evolution and not much more about biology. Yes, random mutations over time are part of how evolution works. Now, you got something relevant to back up that "mathematically impossible" claim with, or just what your pastor/priest/shaman/medicine man/witch doctor tells you every Sunday?

Seriously, educate yourself. Your mind will thank you.

Yes, the calculations are simple. Lets say we want one protein 100 amino acids long (most are much more, the highest I think is like 27,000 amino acids long).  You have 20 different amino acids to choose from. The correct one must be at its spot 100 times. It's like rolling a 20 sided die and getting the same number 100 times. So (1/20)^100 =7.89x 10^-131. This is like one in 10^130 tries. Just to give you an idea of how big this number is, there are thought to be like 10^65 atoms in the universe. This isn't even counting the fact that amino acids form peptide bonds with the help of enzymes in the body, and exist in one of two stereoisomers in nature, yet only one is used in proteins.

[AAA]

I love biology, and I know how it works. It's not that I don't understand them, it is that mutation is inadequate to account for the phenomena in the cell. It's easy to just tell me I know nothing, but you didn't answer the question. Because I think you know if you say yes you will be admitting to accepting the mathematically impossible.

It isn't biology which you know anything of. Please stop insulting science with your theosophic, and uber sophistic substitutions. When you don't know jack, you have no right to weigh in on what is or isn't possible! You, Behe, and the few other quacks walk like ducks, and you quack like ducks, and what you need now is:




The following are not scientific, but they are infinitely closer to it than any monotheism:

I would just insult me too if I didn't have a good response. Notice how I am the one trying to discuss biological topics, while you are just mocking.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I would just insult me too if I didn't have a good response. Notice how I am the one trying to discuss biological topics, while you are just mocking.

I mock and insult you because it's gratifying, and because your arguments deserve no respect when they are argued from nothing more substantial than your ignorance.

Here, if you can handle it, and of course every word you post clarifies the fact that you can't,


is something for you to chew on: What isn't likely may still be true, but the unlikely remains not worth considering just because so many crybabies for Christ stamp their feet, bawl, and throw shit all over the biology classrooms in an attempt at forcing somebody there to agree with them. Conversely, what is likely remains likely whether or not you understand how it could have happened.

BONUS:
Not that anybody here purports the hypothesis of abiogenesis as fact. The rest is covered by a theory which explains the facts which are undeniable by anybody under the flag of science.

[AAA]

I would just insult me too if I didn't have a good response. Notice how I am the one trying to discuss biological topics, while you are just mocking.

I insult you because it's gratifying, and you're arguments deserve no respect because they consist of nothing more than the argument from ignorance.

Here, if you can handle it, and of course every word you post clarifies the fact that you can't,


is something for you to chew on: What isn't likely may still be true, but what is likely remains likely whether or not you understand how it is.

BONUS:
Not that anybody here purports the hypothesis of abiogenesis as fact. The rest is covered by a theory which explains the facts which are undeniable by anybody under the flag of science.

I know that you insult me because it's gratifying to you. That's fine, if it helps you sleep at night. Also, no it's not like once abiogenesis managed to happen evolution can take over from there. There are a lot of molecular features that you really have to stretch the imagination to think that an accumulation of mutations led to them. And yes plenty of professionals in the field disagree with the whole hearted story of evolution. Sure, there are some aspects of it that are true. Darwin was onto something, but the question is whether or not it really does explain everything after abiogenesis up to now. It's not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from what we do know about molecular biology, not what we don't know.

[Cyberman]

"But it's just a theory..!"

[robvalue]

For the umpteen billionth time: pointing out perceived problems with evolution does absolutely nothing to establish "God did it with magic" as an alternative. All it would establish is we need to improve/replace the theory and more investigation is needed.

That's if the problems are valid of course, it's the best case scenario for the theist and it still doesn't help them.

[SteelCurtain]

AAA, the ad hoc bullshit you're spewing is tired. I'm not going to get into a protracted argument here, but you're committing a fallacy of composition on top of starting with a false premise.

Evolution is not purely random, and treating it as such is false. Also, you are assuming that all mutations are sequential. They are not. Making ad hoc statistical observations about many many mutations and treating the process as one occurrence is a ridiculous oversimplification of a process that you clearly do not understand.

I'll put it like this, for comparison: There have been, let's say as a conservative estimate, 5,500 generations of homo sapiens. Let's say the average person has sex 80 times in a year. Let's say the average fertility range is 15-55, so the average person will have sex 3200 times in their life. The average ejaculation includes 1.3 billion sperm cells. The average woman will produce around 400 viable ovum in her lifetime. Doing the math gives us, in your lineage, conservatively, a 4x10-²⁵ chance that you would exist. And that doesn't even account for all the nocturnal emissions and masturbatory sperm cells that you could have been, and it doesn't account for the complicated math that would account for each pair of people meeting at just the right time and marrying/fucking to make babies.

So would it be wise for me to doubt your existence based on this awesome ad hoc calculation?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Also, no it's not like once abiogenesis managed to happen evolution can take over from there.

...and you know this how? Stop plugging your head up with denial, and read some books by actually qualified biologists, biochemists, and physicists who know how it would have been possible. STOP insulting us with denials that anything could have happened based on what you happen to know about the modern-day biological systems, which of course did not spring up overnight! Learn what you're talking about first, before you decide what is or isn't possible!

There are a lot of molecular features that you really have to stretch the imagination to think that an accumulation of mutations led to them. And yes plenty of professionals in the field disagree with the whole hearted story of evolution.

"Whole-hearted"? Okay, you win a cookie for that! Now you're actually getting to be funny!

Sure, there are some aspects of it that are true. Darwin was onto something, but the question is whether or not it really does explain everything after abiogenesis up to now. It's not an argument from ignorance. It is an argument from what we do know about molecular biology, not what we don't know.

As observed a few posts back, abiogenesis remains an untested hypothesis, unlike the process by which life evolved once it got under way on a planet where any could go because the first life forms existed without predators. Natural selection is a theory which consistently explains the proven facts, and has been observed in real time, whether or not you choose to observe them for yourself. There is no science, none whatsoever to posit "microevolution/macroevolution" - this is purely wishful masturbation, so don't even go there (if you do, I shall taunt thee again, heehhehehhe).

[Pat Mustard]

My personal favorite for amusement purposes is Wendy Wright screeching out to Dawkins "Were you THERE?!!" I don't think I've ever seen such a hysterically stupid person before, and I have met a lot of very stupid religious people!

Oh, and we also had a perfect troll who claimed to be a top biology student, while insisting that every life form shows "perfect design" - yeah, how could I not see how obvious that is?

It's not perfect (it literally couldn't be) but the design is pretty apparent when you look at how the cell works.

Hey, hey, Junk Status strikes back. I thought you'd run away after the last time we gave you a good spankering for your constant lies.