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

[Pat Mustard]

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.

Ah come on now Junk Status is a "top student of biology" who would publish his "astounding research which proves ceratardism is true" only the "scientist, liburrrl, illuminati complex are forcing him to keep quiet as publishing would destroy their conspiracy they have going to keep us sheeple stoopid".

Despite what his mother told me when I was giving her a good rogering a few months ago, he is not so thick that she has to put his shoes on in the morning because he doesn't know left from right. No sirree!

[AAA]

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?

No, we were talking about abiogenesis in the calculation portion. That is BEFORE it can reproduce and therefore evolve. So no it isn't a fallacy. Scientists think that there are about 250 -400 proteins needed by the simplest possible viable organism in order to enter the evolutionary pathway. We just calculated the unbelievable odds of one. So you do need a ton of sequential characters to line up in the correct sequence in order to start evolution. If it wasn't random, then what was it?

[robvalue]

So what?

Even if was astoundingly unlikely, so what? It has happened.

[AAA]

"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.

Ah come on now Junk Status is a "top student of biology" who would publish his "astounding research which proves ceratardism is true" only the "scientist, liburrrl, illuminati complex are forcing him to keep quiet as publishing would destroy their conspiracy they have going to keep us sheeple stoopid".

Despite what his mother told me when I was giving her a good rogering a few months ago, he is not so thick that she has to put his shoes on in the morning because he doesn't know left from right. No sirree!

And you wonder why atheists get their reputation as arrogant and moral-less people. If I were another atheist on this forum I would be frustrated with you for bringing the rest of them down.

[AAA]

So what?

Even if was astoundingly unlikely, so what? It has happened.

Well obviously life started, but you have to ask whether it is more likely to have happened undirected (remember, one protein is considered mathematically impossible if you look back at the previous post) or if it is more likely that it was directed.

[robvalue]

What's that got to do with theism?

[AAA]

...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).

What makes you think that small variations, or even significant variations are evidence that evolution can do what it needs to do on the molecular level. Think about how much variability is built into the genome. Each of our cells have the same genes, but depending on chemical signals from their environment, they can specialize into things such as nerve cells or epithelial cells, which are vastly different. Similarly changing the environment actually changes the phenotype of the organism. It is called epigenetics. You express different genes in different situations, which allows significant change. Yet you are not actually changing the sequence of DNA, which you must do in order for it to be evidence of evolution. And I am reading books. Biochemistry and molecular biology textbooks, and I think if you try it you may have trouble stretching your imagination to account for what you see. If you want me to pick out some interesting statements from the books I can.

[AAA]

What's that got to do with theism?

Well if it were directed, then there are only a few options I can think of. Either something else in this universe did it, or something outside the universe did. But if it were designed, then whatever designed it had unimaginable intelligence considering how intricate and interactive these systems are. I think that the best answer is a being outside the universe, but that isn't even what is want people to conclude. I just am tired of people acting as though the mechanism proposed by Darwin is adequate to explain this:
These are biochemical pathways. Each red/blue/green word is the name of a protein/enzyme that catalyzes a specific step. The lines show how the products of one reaction become the substrates of another. Notice how they are all interrelated. It is definitely premature to say mutation is an adequate cause, especially when you wouldn't even have anything to mutate without a significant amount of these biochemical pathways already in place.

[vorlon13]

Lame if you think about it category:

citing various random occurrences like dodging a car accident, or winning a football game to 'God's Will' (like He gives a fuck) when there is a big list of shit we haven't established yet:

does God even exist?
are the people affected by the accident or football win members of "The One True Faith"?
and that God is clear (if/when His existence is demonstrated) that the accident or win wasn't a random event, and He in fact, had a vested interest in ordaining the noted accident/win as per his "Holy Plan".

[TanithDaUnicorn]

"You think everything came from nothing? How stupid are you!"