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

[God of Mr. Hanky]

---

Scientists? What scientists, and why do you suddenly give a fuck what they think if they happen to be legit?

The bullshit here should be obvious: numerous and complex proteins are not required in order to "enter the evolutionary pathways", because evolution could not have begun molecules so complex as proteins. The bare rocks are not, and probably never were composed of any proteins, but self replicating molecules may have arisen in water, when silicaceous deposits bonded with some of the simple compounds which were in existence, and also happened to be bases which continued to evolve and form proteins. Such scenarios would not have been just one, but many (global), and without the competituon and predation of existing life forms, there was nothing to stop a few of these chains from moving forward. Like all the evolution which can in fact be observed, it begins simple, and changes very slowly. A few generations from out of the rocks would be barely comparable to anything which you would call modern biology, but then the viruses which survive today aren't much different. As it is with all life forms, you either become good at surviving in your current form, stop reproducing altogether and face outright extinctiont, or fade into extinction while a few of your offspring take advantage of your reproduction errors, keeping that change in the gene pool. When there have been many such surviving changes which began with you, and you were a now-extinct type of rodent, you may have a descendant who is a chimpanzee.

---

[AAA]

[/hide]
When you start talking about how it may have happened this way or silicone molecules binding together, you have just left what the data shows, and entered into some wishful speculation. I don't know why you have this idea that molecules are constantly arranging themselves spontaneously to form more complex structures. Even the formation of a phosphodiester bond or an amide bond are not spontaneous reactions and are not thermodynamically favorable. Also once they form, there are enzymes that must constantly monitor and repair the DNA to make sure it doesn't spontaneously degrade. So you can't have this random molecules becoming more complex slowly, it just isn't what happens in chemistry. The more stable molecule is the most energetically favorable form, and DNA, proteins, or your mystery molecules are not the most stable form. You are getting WAY too speculative with your origin of life scenario, and deviating largely from the actual evidence. 

And yes natural selection does help the ones with the best genes survive. The question is are the best genes the ones that have been mutated or the ones that have avoided mutation? It can easily be viewed as a mechanism to remove the individuals with broken genes so that the broken genes don't pollute the population.

Well of course it's just hopelessly speculative, because without any data it just isn't possible!  Well at least the speculations of actual scientists don't write their own biased laws of physics and chemistry. The sum of all the statements which you have made here imply only one thing clearly, which is that you love nothing more than not knowing. If you had a good answer, that us one with a good and thorough explanation, then this would render your mysterious God useless, and you really, really don't want to do that, do you? Admit it, you're frightened of us!

Oh, Lawd, please save us from that big, bad evil-lootionist! Oh....why won't he just leave us alone and let us go back to being the humble and ignorant barbarians which we were the first time you led us to sack and burn the cities of the scientists?

I'm not the one running from science. I bring in scientific phenomena every response, while you just put words in my mouth and act as though you are so high and mighty, yet you have said nothing to demonstrate that you've graduated from high school. And your speculations go against what we see with how these molecules are formed, so that's why I don't like them. I never said I had a thorough explanation for how it happened, just that your explanation is wrong.

[FebruaryOfReason]

Well of course it's just hopelessly speculative, because without any data it just isn't possible!  Well at least the speculations of actual scientists don't write their own biased laws of physics and chemistry. The sum of all the statements which you have made here imply only one thing clearly, which is that you love nothing more than not knowing. If you had a good answer, that us one with a good and thorough explanation, then this would render your mysterious God useless, and you really, really don't want to do that, do you? Admit it, you're frightened of us!

Oh, Lawd, please save us from that big, bad evil-lootionist! Oh....why won't he just leave us alone and let us go back to being the humble and ignorant barbarians which we were the first time you led us to sack and burn the cities of the scientists?

I'm not the one running from science. I bring in scientific phenomena every response, while you just put words in my mouth and act as though you are so high and mighty, yet you have said nothing to demonstrate that you've graduated from high school. And your speculations go against what we see with how these molecules are formed, so that's why I don't like them. I never said I had a thorough explanation for how it happened, just that your explanation is wrong.

Please see my previous post, AAA. I did graduate from High School.

In fact, I went on to graduate from University. In chemistry.

I know how these molecules are formed. I don't need to speculate. I don't simply believe what I was told by my tutors. I verified what they told me in the laboratory.

[AAA]

One we've had recently is, "We'll see who is right when we're dead."

I would reply:

"OK, let's bet on it: You give me all your money now, then if you're right, I'll give you all your money back in the afterlife, plus all of mine."

I don't know how it happened, but I DO know that it wasn't just mutation and natural selection. I also think that intelligence is the only known cause capable of explaining cellular biology, so that is my default conclusion until something else can explain it better. Do you want me to explain how the designer did it or what? It manually linked amino acids together and DNA to form a functional system. How's that?

Umm, actually, DNA can replicate itself. That's kinda the whole thing about DNA.

Meselson and Stahl demonstrated very elegantly how it does this way back in 1958. Worth looking up. Google "Semi-conservative replication". Or try this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meselson%E...experiment

You see how great science is? I can find out how things were done just by typing stuff into a computer. I can find out not just what we know, but how we know it.

But more's the point, you don't need to just take my word for it. You can do it yourself just by following the description in the link above. You'll need a centrifuge etc, but you can do it. If it wasn't possible to do it yourself with a semi-decent laboratory, none of the scientific community would have accepted it at all.

But if you think God set up the whole DNA thing, that is the end of your knowledge. You can only speculate on how, or why. And no one else can help either. Their guesses are no better than yours.

DNA does NOT replicate itself. Not even close!!!! It needs dozens of proteins to unwind it, locate the origin of replication, and read the template. DNA isn't catalytic. If you saw somewhere that DNA has the ability to replicate itself, don't believe it. Saying it can is just so not even remotely close to being true that it makes me depressed.

[Ravenshire]

So, pulling shit out of your ass is evidence these days? Go read a book, junior.

Everything in there is true. Don't argue with math. It is like the only thing about the world that is unarguable. If you're saying that it is wrong, then you might as well argue that 2+2= -12,113,534

Never said your math was wrong, dumb-ass. It just doesn't support your lame-assed argument the way you think it does.

[AAA]

I'm not the one running from science. I bring in scientific phenomena every response, while you just put words in my mouth and act as though you are so high and mighty, yet you have said nothing to demonstrate that you've graduated from high school. And your speculations go against what we see with how these molecules are formed, so that's why I don't like them. I never said I had a thorough explanation for how it happened, just that your explanation is wrong.

Please see my previous post, AAA. I did graduate from High School.

In fact, I went on to graduate from University. In chemistry.

I know how these molecules are formed. I don't need to speculate. I don't simply believe what I was told by my tutors. I verified what they told me in the laboratory.

Ok, well then tell me is the formation of a phosphodiester bond a spontaneous reaction? What about the formation of a peptide bond? Do you know that amino acids have a chiral carbon, meaning they have stereoisomers? Did you know that only the L form isomer makes proteins? What are the odds that a long polypeptide would form with only the L handedness in nature? Also I am skeptical that you graduated from a University yet you make such an inaccurate statement as saying that DNA can replicate itself. That is just a blatant lie. You need helicases, single stranded binding proteins, DNA polymerases, ligases, topoisomerases, and many more. Also if you formed DNA and proteins in the lab, then congratulations, you should be up for your nobel prize soon, because you are the first one. Also if you graduated in chemistry, then you may know about the catalytic efficiency of enzymes. Some of them are literally kinetically perfect, meaning that they catalyze reactions as fast as reactants diffuse and contact them. Have you ever seen a catalyst that reacts that perfectly?

[AAA]

Everything in there is true. Don't argue with math. It is like the only thing about the world that is unarguable. If you're saying that it is wrong, then you might as well argue that 2+2= -12,113,534

Never said your math was wrong, dumb-ass. It just doesn't support your lame-assed argument the way you think it does.

It certainly gives your argument problems

[Ravenshire]

argument from incredulity.

You are dismissing something based on your own inability to either believe or at least entertain the evidence as currently provided. Unfortunately this is not sufficient to form a counter hypothesis. You require some study or body of literature that explains an alternative proposal which has the verifiable and testable data behind it allowing it to be reproduced. If you could provide some that'd be swell, please.

No, actually I don't need to put forward an alternative in order to reject an explanation that doesn't hold up. I don't have to accept an inadequate cause just because it is the only choice. I can rather say I don't know. Better yet, I can use the cause that is adequate: designer. I don't have to prove the inability of gradual processes leading to thousands of specified nucleotides. That is the null hypothesis which we assume to be true. We must then try to support the alternative hypothesis (gradual processes are sufficient). That would be like me telling you to prove that God doesn't exist using repeatable and testable data, which we both agree isn't a fair request. Both theories about the past are impossible to investigate using the conventional scientific empiricism which you are talking about.

If your going to posit a designer as an alternative to evolution, you most certainly must supply evidence. It's called the burden of proof and it's on you.

[FebruaryOfReason]

DNA needs Helicase to unwind it.

This is one enzyme.

[Ravenshire]

Never said your math was wrong, dumb-ass. It just doesn't support your lame-assed argument the way you think it does.

It certainly gives your argument problems

No, actually, it doesn't. Your ignorance provides you with the illusion that it does.