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

[Ravenshire]

---

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.

---

You know, it's not even the idea of a designer that I find totally and completely fucked up, but that the designer is his version of some all powerful gawd creature. If it were proven that life got started through some form of creation, it would be far easier to believe it was alien scientists or Steve the programmer running a simulation than to believe it's some mystical sky fairy that lives outside of time and the universe.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

All-Time Lamest Defense For Theism I've Ever Heard:

Theists. Those who think they have a defense against critical reason, or (far worse) have the delusion that theism can be reconciled with the same are consistently dishonest, batshit crazy, and stupid.

[AAA]

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.

Well obviously the first cells wouldn't have been that complex, but when making statements like that about the past, you have now left the evidence and gone into speculation. That's fine, but when a scientist speculates, it can wrongly get associated with the empirical science that we all agree is where we should base our views. And I agree, it is not fun to watch someone who disagrees with evolution do such a poor job at attacking it like Ray Comfort or whatever. But just because they use weak arguments doesn't mean there view is completely wrong. I've seen some pretty bad atheist arguments too. 

The problem I have with these biosynthetic pathways evolving is the mechanism. I don't like the mechanism of mutation as the source of variation. It's a weak force. I think that most of the observed variation is explained by changes in gene expression due to epigenetic factors. The environment induces a change in the phenotype without damaging the genotype. Evolution is our capstone course though, and I'm only a junior, so I'll be taking it next year.

[AAA]

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.

Yeah, it is nice. It's very nice. I don't get why to the atheist the null hypothesis is that it evolved. I think our first instinct ought to be design, and the alternate hypothesis (the one you test) should be that it evolved. And the evidence that it designed is that every process needed for life is determined by sequential information. Large amounts of it too. It is unlikely that it got there by chance (I calculated the odds of just one 100 amino acid long protein forming randomly a few pages ago, and it was mathematically impossible). There appears to be no inherent need for them to orient themselves into a functional sequence. So it's not necessity. What are you left with? You can say I don't know and hold out for a better answer, but don't tell me that there is more evidence that it happened without a designer. So far, a designer is the ONLY known cause that is capable of producing that much sequential information. Why do you think it happened without a designer?

[Ravenshire]

you have now left the evidence and gone into speculation.

While Rocket may have left the the evidence and moved on to speculation (though I don't completely agree with that idea) you have yet to give any evidence that leads to a creator nor have you provided your methodology. How can we test your findings without these things?!?

[AAA]

you have now left the evidence and gone into speculation.

While Rocket may have left the the evidence and moved on to speculation (though I don't completely agree with that idea) you have yet to give any evidence that leads to a creator nor have you provided your methodology. How can we test your findings without these things?!?

 I just posted it. Also you can't test it any better than you can test any other abiogenesis theory. Lets say that we mixed some chemicals in high pressure systems and got 20 amino acids linked together. Would this then be the accepted answer to abiogenesis? All we have done is demonstrated that it CAN happen. Now lets say that I go and introduce one amino acid to a solution at a time and add heat until they bonded. I form a purposeful sequence. Would intelligent design then be accepted? We have again demonstrated only that it CAN happen, we will never be able to say for sure which one DID happen. That's why the empiricism that you crave cannot be applied to the origin of life, no matter how much we both wish it could.

[Ravenshire]

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.

Yeah, it is nice. It's very nice. I don't get why to the atheist the null hypothesis is that it evolved. I think our first instinct ought to be design, and the alternate hypothesis (the one you test) should be that it evolved. And the evidence that it designed is that every process needed for life is determined by sequential information. Large amounts of it too. It is unlikely that it got there by chance (I calculated the odds of just one 100 amino acid long protein forming randomly a few pages ago, and it was mathematically impossible). There appears to be no inherent need for them to orient themselves into a functional sequence. So it's not necessity. What are you left with? You can say I don't know and hold out for a better answer, but don't tell me that there is more evidence that it happened without a designer. So far, a designer is the ONLY known cause that is capable of producing that much sequential information. Why do you think it happened without a designer?

Evolution isn't the null hypothesis. It's the theory that has been built from Darwin's original observations for over 150 years. The evidence for evolution and creationism have both been tested rigorously. Guess which theory has survived 150 years of rigorous testing by professional scientists and which one gets debunked by internet message board board posters in less than 150 minutes.

The mathematical impossibility of a modern cell popping up spontaneously isn't going to impress anybody. Hell, it's not even relevant. There are mountains of evidence in favor of evolution with more coming every single day while you and your ilk flail about with arguments from ignorance and arguments from incredulity. All you've got is a gawd of the gaps argument with gaps being closed off daily. So, unless you want to present evidence for your creator and his process, and describe your methodology, all you've got is an ancient book and a bunch of bad arguments.

[Ravenshire]

While Rocket may have left the the evidence and moved on to speculation (though I don't completely agree with that idea) you have yet to give any evidence that leads to a creator nor have you provided your methodology. How can we test your findings without these things?!?

 I just posted it. Also you can't test it any better than you can test any other abiogenesis theory. Lets say that we mixed some chemicals in high pressure systems and got 20 amino acids linked together. Would this then be the accepted answer to abiogenesis? All we have done is demonstrated that it CAN happen. Now lets say that I go and introduce one amino acid to a solution at a time and add heat until they bonded. I form a purposeful sequence. Would intelligent design then be accepted? We have again demonstrated only that it CAN happen, we will never be able to say for sure which one DID happen. That's why the empiricism that you crave cannot be applied to the origin of life, no matter how much we both wish it could.

So, now your conflating abiogenesis with evolution. Give it up kid. They're two different things.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

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.

Why do you think it happened without a designer?

You know as well as anyone here about this, you've been around here much too long. This isn't your first atheist forum either, I've seen you trolling around the one owned by Wolf, and Patheos when I was there. You aren't worth repeating it for.

You'll never learn anything if you keep on flapping away while never listening.

PAY ATTENTION!!!

[Ravenshire]

Why do you think it happened without a designer?

You know as well as anyone here about this, you've been around here much too long. This isn't your first atheist forum either, I've seen you trolling around the one owned by Wolf, and Patheos when I was there. You aren't worth repeating it for.

You'll never learn anything if you keep on flapping away while never listening.

PAY ATTENTION!!!

A multi-board troll?!? Fuck it. I'm done.