The Problem with Christians

[robvalue]

Interesting, this is the first answer I've ever had about what non-designed life would be like. And the answer is it's impossible to describe it.

This is why it's not science. There is no test. There is no model. There are no predictions. There is no falsifiable criteria. There is an assumption that is the same as the conclusion, and then there is slinging mud all over any other explanations.

[AAA]

I'm not the one making claims about whether it was designed or not designed. I have no beliefs about it.

It's impossible for you to describe non-designed life? Well you're done, then. You're assuming your conclusion.

We all know you do have beliefs about it. Non designed life would be much simpler. We could calculate the formation of its structures without arriving at unbelievably improbable numbers. It wouldn't depend on information. Life probably wouldn't have developed into slowly reproducing organisms like elephants and other large mammals, because the most fit organism from an evolutionary point of view is that which is able to produce the most viable offspring. Microbes excel at this, and I would expect life to never amount to much more than that. I wouldn't expect it to be dependent on protein machines.

[AAA]

Interesting, this is the first answer I've ever had about what non-designed life would be like. And the answer is it's impossible to describe it.

This is why it's not science. There is no test. There is no model. There are no predictions. There is no falsifiable criteria. There is an assumption that is the same as the conclusion, and then there is slinging mud all over any other explanations.

Ok, well then what would designed life look like? Even if you don't have an opinion about it, you know scientists do. If they can't answer it, is it then unscientific to say that it wasn't designed?

[The Grand Nudger]

Focusing on your calculation is deflective.  Math (and probability) is only informative when it accurately models the relationships you wish to explore.  You failed to accurately model reality, or the proposition which you seek to discredit, in your model...and thusly, all the math in the world, good or bad...is useless to either end.

If 1+1=2, then there is no god.  1+1=2, so there is no god.   Dispute my math.........

So you think that something that has a one  in 7.89 x 10^131 chance of happening is probable?

Again, I think that you're deflecting, your model is not representative, and we aren't even discussing probabilities.   

I see you didn't dispute my math, so you must agree that god doesn't exist?

[robvalue]

I'm not the one making claims about whether it was designed or not designed. I have no beliefs about it.

It's impossible for you to describe non-designed life? Well you're done, then. You're assuming your conclusion.

We all know you do have beliefs about it. Non designed life would be much simpler. We could calculate the formation of its structures without arriving at unbelievably improbable numbers. It wouldn't depend on information. Life probably wouldn't have developed into slowly reproducing organisms like elephants and other large mammals, because the most fit organism from an evolutionary point of view is that which is able to produce the most viable offspring. Microbes excel at this, and I would expect life to never amount to much more than that. I wouldn't expect it to be dependent on protein machines.

My beliefs are irrelevant. You are making claims, not me.

So you've just described non-designed life, after saying it would be impossible to describe.

How do you know any of this, that you've just described? Your criteria is how simple it is? If I give you a life form, what exactly will you do with it to determine if it was designed or not? You'll do a probability calculation and announce it is designed if your number falls below...an arbitrary value?

[LadyForCamus]

I'm still waiting for an answer for why God created restraints and obstacles for life. Also, an answer to Esq.'s question as to how you guys can consider complexity evidence of design when complexity, according to you, is not evidence that your God was designed.

[robvalue]

Yep, we never got an answer to that.

God has restrictions in place for life. Either he created those restrictions by choice, or it was necessary to have them and he was powerless to do anything but work around them.

Which is it? Can anyone keep their story straight for five minutes?

He did but he didn't. He must work around them, but he didn't have to. How do people live with this kind of dissonance...

[Esquilax]

It is math, I don't need to appeal to citations because it is universal. If you don't like the math, then point out where it went wrong. 

It's math based on factual claims about proteins and how they might be derived: your numbers may be right, but that doesn't mean they actually correspond to the real world objects you're making reference to. If I use my own height as a yardstick with which to determine the height of an object, but I also mistakenly think I'm 100 feet tall, then my numbers might be perfectly correct without giving me the actual height of the object.

Additionally, again: do you think that scientists just plum don't have any answers to these contentions?

It doesn't matter if we start with proteins or not, we eventually have to account for there formation.

It matters if your argument is predicated on the idea that each protein must be coded from scratch, rather than building from simpler bases up to modern proteins, which would be a perfectly valid abiogenetic process. Also, you're falling into the same trap AJW did, where you're mistaking "poking a hole in abiogenesis," with "providing evidence for your religious claims."

Also how could we start with something similar? DNA and RNA are going to give you the same problem, only worse, because you have to eventually develop a code for proteins with a specific structure that allows them to interact with the DNA/RNA. Also, even attempts to artificially design RNA that is capable of autocatalysis have failed. The reason I chose protein is that they are necessary in every living system that has ever been observed, so to say that we can start with something simpler is speculation.

Somebody who believes in god has no business appealing to observations to dismiss anyone elses' positions.

I figured we should start with what we know to exist rather than something we don't know existed (a self replicating RNA).

Who even said RNA? The fact is that we don't know how it happened, and yet you're still making assumptions about how it did, while somehow having the wherewithal to suggest that others shouldn't do that. It's a bit breathtaking, actually.

And yes, scientists don't have a counter to this. That why the origin of life issue is so difficult. Most researchers recognize that chance alone is not sufficient. The typical counter is that some simpler self replicating molecules began competing, but these ideas are often vague and chemically impractical. 

Did you ask any scientists, or do any research at all, or is this one of those things where we have to accept "because I said so," as justification?

Also, you saying that I believe a wizard poofed everything into existence is an unfair oversimplification. That would be like me saying that you believe a rock magically turned into a human.

Except that's what the bible says happened: god "spoke" things into existence, which is literally a golem spell. Now, you can interpret that other ways, but the fact is that you've got no other basis for the creation account other than that you look better if you don't ascribe to literal creation.

Oversimplification or not, though, you're still contending with a probability of zero, for god. There's no getting around that, especially given how crazy you are for odds everywhere else.

[Esquilax]

If all sequences of 10 are acceptable, then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is 100%. If only a few sequences are acceptable (as is the case with proteins) then the chance of getting an acceptable sequence is low.

So let's tweak a few variables. Let's say that only one sequence of ten cards is acceptable, and let's give us several million years to draw it. Let's also say that, in every draw, if you get a card in a workable position on the sequence you get to keep it there, even if the other nine cards are out of sequence, and bring it through to the next drawing.

Now you've got something closer to the natural selection process. What do you think the chances are of getting the right sequence in millions of years now?

[Esquilax]

I gave you a a perfectly reasonable definition of intelligence and showed you how perfectly DNA fits the definition. You then completely avoided the question, "How is it that this does not qualify as intelligent?" I would like an answer to this please.

I presume you know that DNA senses errors, retains the knowledge of what is correct and what is incorrect sequencing and conducts complex repair procedures. If this is not the case, I can point you to any one of hundreds of papers laying it out for you.

My point was that at no time did you establish that what DNA does is "sensing," nor that it "knows" anything, let alone remembers. You just said those things as fiat assertions and expected me to prove you wrong, which I don't really need to do for a claim where every important factor was simply demanded to be true without justification. You're asserting agency to things that you can't possibly demonstrate agency for.