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

[AAA]

Apart from the obvious logical inconsistencies of fine tuning, of course. I don't want to bring up the puddle as an argument of parsimony but fine tuning has been debunked so many times it's not even fun anymore.

And, AAA, if I may, you've still not explained away the argument from incredulity. I believe you may have misappropriated the 'I don't know argument' by adding an additional condition of 'it's certainly not that, but what it is I don't know.'

And before equivocating that argument and a prima facie similarity of the rejection of God theses, I have to say that abiogenesis and evolution beyond do have a wealth of evidence to support them. The creator thesis has only one; personal anecdote and belief.

I'm not even going to argue that you are wrong. I just don't see any reason beyond your belief to believe you are right.

Ok, then why don't you believe in Design. You are arguing from incredulity because you just can't understand how it happened. Do you see why this is a stupid argument? It's not like I just don't know how it could have evolved, but others do. It is that we do know how it functions, and it parallels a superior system that we may design. They do not have a wealth of evidence to support them. I want you to explain the evidence for how evolution accounts for the origin for one protein. Be careful not to go beyond the evidence or use suppositions and excessive imagination. Tell me why you intuitively think this was not designed. These are biochemical pathways with enzymes at each step:

[abaris]

Before you post any more schematics, would you care to answer the question about earth's history? Are you in perfect denial?

[AAA]

No, there is a difference between them forming in nature and being considered spontaneous. Spontaneous have a negative change in free energy, yet peptide bonds do not. 

And you are misunderstanding the Meselson and Stahl experiment. It still used the enzymes, they just demonstrated that it was semiconservative rather than conservative, nonconservative, or mixed. Semiconservative just means that each new DNA strand contains one original and one new strand. 

And I am holding my biochemistry textbook that says "enzymes that have a kcat/Km ratios at the upper limits have attained kinetic perfection. Their catalytic velocity is restricted only by the rate at which they encounter substrate in the solution." Some that are perfect are acetylcholinesterase, carbonic anydrase, catalase, superoxide dismutase, and there are more listed.

I always love when a low-level amateur tries to lecture the Jet Propulsion Lab's abiogenesis research teams about biochemistry.

They know that's an issue, AAA, and that's why most of the research at the moment seems to point to rock micropores as an "assist" to the process that would normally be difficult or impossible in a free solution.

Regardless, your arguments are still  nothing more than "God of the Gaps" arguments, especially since you're relying on outright lies about information theory upon which to base your argument.

Educate yourself.

It's not that I put God where we don't understand, it is that I see what we do understand, and believe it was designed based on how it operates. If I remember, you are a retired biologist? Please tell me honestly whether or not you ever wondered if it was designed when you learned about the inner workings of the cell. The way that genes are regulated is just so impressive. I read like 4 articles on histone modification a few days ago, and it is just mind blowing. Also, almost all biomolecules are capable of bearing information based on the sequence they are put in. DNA, Proteins, and Carbohydrates.

[The Valkyrie]

"It doesn't matter if science completely disproves the bible, I'll still believe the bible!"

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

The ignorance of Ken Ham and his cronies.

Yes, I've read this crap from him before.

He never has answered the questions I've put to him...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The evidence base does not suggest a creator. Your beliefs, however, do.

I'm not really willing to keep on asking for simple answers to simple questions any further (posting pictures of pathways doesn't dismiss the argument from incredulity or indeed answer my questions). Good night.

[AAA]

Before you post any more schematics, would you care to answer the question about earth's history? Are you in perfect denial?

I don't really know what to make of Earth's history, but I don't think you should stick too much to the mainstream timeline. What do you make of megalithic structures and things found in 2.8 billion year old rock that appear to be man made. Are they all just fake? Artifacts in coal, dinosaur-like pictograms, egyptian artifacts allegedly found in the grand canyon. Unless all this stuff is fake, I'm really not sure what to make of it. Just so I don't get bombarded about this post, I don't think that the earth is 6000 years old, but I really don't know what to make of a lot of it. I could just say they are all hoaxes, but I just don't think they are. So short answer: I'm not sure

[Edwardo Piet]

That's the most sophisticated DooM level I've ever seen. Where can I download that WAD?

[abaris]

I don't really know what to make of Earth's history, but I don't think you should stick too much to the mainstream timeline. What do you make of megalithic structures and things found in 2.8 billion year old rock that appear to be man made. Are they all just fake? Artifacts in coal, dinosaur-like pictograms, egyptian artifacts allegedly found in the grand canyon. Unless all this stuff is fake, I'm really not sure what to make of it. Just so I don't get bombarded about this post, I don't think that the earth is 6000 years old, but I really don't know what to make of a lot of it. I could just say they are all hoaxes, but I just don't think they are. So short answer: I'm not sure

Yeah ... thought as much.

If you bothered to stick to serious sources instead of dubious web junk, we could have a discussion. But that doesn't seem worth the effort.

[Cyberman]

The ignorance of Ken Ham and his cronies.

Yes, I've read this crap from him before.

He never has answered the questions I've put to him...

Was one of them "Why are you such an odious little shit", by any chance? 'Cos I'm sure we all already know the answer.

[Rhondazvous]

I always love when a low-level amateur tries to lecture the Jet Propulsion Lab's abiogenesis research teams about biochemistry.

They know that's an issue, AAA, and that's why most of the research at the moment seems to point to rock micropores as an "assist" to the process that would normally be difficult or impossible in a free solution.

Regardless, your arguments are still  nothing more than "God of the Gaps" arguments, especially since you're relying on outright lies about information theory upon which to base your argument.

Educate yourself.

It's not that I put God where we don't understand, it is that I see what we do understand, and believe it was designed based on how it operates. If I remember, you are a retired biologist? Please tell me honestly whether or not you ever wondered if it was designed when you learned about the inner workings of the cell. The way that genes are regulated is just so impressive. I read like 4 articles on histone modification a few days ago, and it is just mind blowing. Also, almost all biomolecules are capable of bearing information based on the sequence they are put in. DNA, Proteins, and Carbohydrates.

What do you mean "we?"

You must first prove the existence of god before you can claim that he did anything. But I see it's to your advantage to put the cart before the horse.