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

[The Valkyrie]

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.

No, I've ask both him and Comfort several questions.

"Why is it that they push creationism in the US instead of their home nations?"

"Is it true they do it because in the US, of all western nations, can they make money doing it?"

"Is it true that when they tried in their home nations they were laughed out of the country?"

[God of Mr. Hanky]

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.

If there was a designer, who after 4.5 billion years can't do much better than you, who lies and shits all over other people's ideas in a pitiful attempt at protecting long-outdated and wildly stupid ideas, then he had unimaginably poor intelligence.

Give the average human with a decent work ethic that much time, and he would not just be directing evolution on this planet, and traveling through the galaxies, no-he would be building new, and better universes!

[God of Mr. Hanky]

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

I see - you believe ignorance makes you wiser, just as you believe that more voluminous and repetitive posting may change how others receive your utter twaddle. Most of all, knowing less makes you more wise.

The fuck, George Orwell was so right, these words will surely ring true forever:

"Ignorance Is Strength!"

[Ravenshire]

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.

I don't care if you think it was designed. I care that you realize it didn't get there through mutation. I think that evidence for a designer comes from the specific sequence of characters that must be present in order for it to function. It really is information, which only comes from intelligence

Well then, convince me. Lay out your evidence and your methodology (so I can test your findings) and prove your case. Until your willing to accept the burdon of proof for your claims, nobody here is going to take you seriously.

[Cyberman]

I see - you believe ignorance makes you wiser, just as you believe that more voluminous and repetitive posting may change how others receive your utter twaddle. Most of all, knowing less makes you more wise.

The fuck, George Orwell was so right, these words will surely ring true forever:

"Ignorance Is Strength!"

It's homeopathic wisdom - the less of it you have, the stronger it must be. Our friend must be up among the gods.

[AAA]

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.

You can't prove anything accept in mathematics. That word doesn't belong in science. We can have evidence that points to a designer to life, but I suspect you'll just push that off as something we don't understand yet and say I'm just doing God of the gaps arguing.

[AAA]

I don't care if you think it was designed. I care that you realize it didn't get there through mutation. I think that evidence for a designer comes from the specific sequence of characters that must be present in order for it to function. It really is information, which only comes from intelligence

Well then, convince me. Lay out your evidence and your methodology (so I can test your findings) and prove your case. Until your willing to accept the burdon of proof for your claims, nobody here is going to take you seriously.

The evidence comes from the information that guides cellular biology. Let's just take an example and run with it. DNA is tightly coiled around histone protein complexes. However, if the organism needs to access this DNA, the histones must loosen their grip on the DNA so the gene contained on it can be transcribed. In order for this loosening to happen, different functional groups are added to a protrusion of the histone. An example is when an acetyl group gets added. This is done by histone acetyltransferase enzymes, which are attracted to the histones by another protein called transcription regulator, which binds to the DNA based on its structure. The acetyl group allows the histones to loosen. General transcription factors then bind to the newly opened DNA. This attracts an RNA polymerase (a molecular machine composed of multiple subunits). This machine makes an mRNA strand, which will then be shipped to where it needs to go by other proteins. It is then translated by a ribosome (another multi-subunit machine). All this to make a protein. All this is guided by the sequence in DNA. Without the sequence you don't get life. How did it get this way progressively?

[Ravenshire]

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.

You can't prove anything accept in mathematics. That word doesn't belong in science. We can have evidence that points to a designer to life, but I suspect you'll just push that off as something we don't understand yet and say I'm just doing God of the gaps arguing.

Lay it out. Show us the evidence and the methodology. Make your case, trip-A. The burden's on you...

[Ravenshire]

Well then, convince me. Lay out your evidence and your methodology (so I can test your findings) and prove your case. Until your willing to accept the burdon of proof for your claims, nobody here is going to take you seriously.

The evidence comes from the information that guides cellular biology. Let's just take an example and run with it. DNA is tightly coiled around histone protein complexes. However, if the organism needs to access this DNA, the histones must loosen their grip on the DNA so the gene contained on it can be transcribed. In order for this loosening to happen, different functional groups are added to a protrusion of the histone. An example is when an acetyl group gets added. This is done by histone acetyltransferase enzymes, which are attracted to the histones by another protein called transcription regulator, which binds to the DNA based on its structure. The acetyl group allows the histones to loosen. General transcription factors then bind to the newly opened DNA. This attracts an RNA polymerase (a molecular machine composed of multiple subunits). This machine makes an mRNA strand, which will then be shipped to where it needs to go by other proteins. It is then translated by a ribosome (another multi-subunit machine). All this to make a protein. All this is guided by the sequence in DNA. Without the sequence you don't get life. How did it get this way progressively?

That's nice, but I wasn't looking for an explanation of how cells work. What's you're evidence that it was designed verses evolved.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

More importantly, it's an explanation of how cells work now, after 4 Billion Years of evolution.

He knows damned well that no one thinks the original cells used the complex structures that have evolved, which he keeps describing.

He knows damned well that they have found so many alternative ways to do the things he's saying are impossible without some Designer that we can't even tell which of the methods is the most likely, and thus worthy of the most resources to research, so we have different teams looking at all of them (NASA/JPL has a great set of links to the different teams working on the abiogenesis question, and the methods they're investigating, but I don't feel like digging it up again) to try to figure out how it occurred naturally.

Given that for 9/10ths of life on earth, there was nothing but bacteria doing the evolving, and a bacterium's generational time is measured in hours or at most days, not years, the 4BY timeline of our evolutionary heritage represents literally a trillion generations, in order to get where our DNA-based systems are, today.

And no, to answer your question. I was a theist when I started my degree, and the more I learned about how life actually works and how it evolved on this planet, the less I thought some "Designer" was necessary... especially while memorizing biosynthetic pathways (you have my sympathies!) for Biochem. In particular, I was put off by learning how things worked, and then watching guys like Ken Hamm deliberately (it has to be deliberate!!) lie to audiences, when they came to my university, about what science knows and how it works.

By the time I graduated, I was an outspoken atheist.