The Problem with Christians

[Huggy Bear]

Yes, being on the side of actual facts, ones not distorted by religious indoctrination/ideology, does tend to indicate a person is a skeptic...

...and we all know that skepticism is the gateway drug to outright atheism.

Not sure what exactly you're responding to.

(Edit to Add: And no, we're QUOTING DENMARK'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE ABOUT THEIR OWN NATION. That's not "making a case".)

You can quote Denmark's website all you want, It's government isn't secular....

[God of Mr. Hanky]

You stupid, ignorant shit! Your malicious equivocation does absolutely nothing to change the facts as they are - atheism has nothing to do with ignoring logic, is not based on any preconceived conclusions, nor "failure to identify an error". Everyone makes errors, and wise atheists don't take exemption to that, but when and where we are right, this is backed with solid evidence. You have nothing behind your arguments other than more arguments, equivocations, and other malicious fallacies. You need to stop being such an ignorant douche and learn the difference between science and the art of argument, or you'll never get anywhere here.

Let me educate you real quick since you've been on this site all of 3 months.

There was a discussion on whether or not Denmark has a secular government, I pointed out the fact that since Denmark had a state sanctioned church that it was in fact NOT secular. Every single atheist involved in the discussion claimed it was indeed secular, despite the proof it was not.

Not one of the Atheists involved in the discussion has admitted they were wrong to this day.

If the atheists here are just "individuals" and not a "group", why weren't any on the right side of the argument? It was an atheist vs theist argument over something that didn't have anything to do with religion... That my friend is illogical.

So what the fuck is your point in raising that now? Nobody's arguing on this forum today the facts on the Danish political system, and any assertion which you can make on its its systematic composition, laws, and facts in practice would stand or fall on the evidence which anyone can easily google. So what that a few atheists here were too lazy to look up the facts which nobody should care about anyway unless they happen to be Danish, or are considering moving to Denmark.

Three fucking years ago, and you're still obsessing on that - Buddy, you are seriously in need of medication!

Moreover, you cannot really be that simple as to believe that one error makes every judgement which every atheist makes wrong or equally questionable to those who argue without any evidence at all, but that's what you do every time somebody fails to prevent you from accessing a keyboard.

Furthermore, the difference between the nature of that argument which you refer to as an "incident" is in no way analogous to your arguments for theism, which have no facts to verify who is right by fact, and who is just blowing smoke.

[AJW333]

DNA is not a code.

What can I say? It appears that the majority of articles denying that DNA is a code are written by people with an agenda - an atheistic one. Since the 1960s DNA has been universally recognised as a code by all of the top experts in the field. The term "coding" is used ALL the time in reference to genetic replication.

This argument from analogy isn't new to us, and it's no more fallacious the hundredth time we hear it than it was on the first. The only difference here is that you've front-loaded it with a bald assertion as to the impossibility of a random code with nothing to justify it.

How about the fact that that random = disordered and code = ordered.  A random code is an oxymoron. Can you show me a scientific proof that codes form through random activity?

Be that as it may, you have to assemble those building blocks in a meaningful sequence to make intelligent code and therefor life. This doesn't happen through random activity. Where do we see this?

if I had no answer to give you, do that mean that your god wins by default?

If what you expect random activity to accomplish is way outside the activity that is normally seen and defies scientific explanation, then it's not such an outrageous conclusion to come to.

Well that's an interesting argument but looking at a barren earth 4.5 billion years ago turning into a place that is literally teeming with incredibly complex life forms, it still represents a massive reversal of local entropy, especially considering that the contributions from outside the local system of the earth appear to be somewhat limited.

And I ask you: what seems more entropic to you: a barren, lifeless rock, or a world teeming with organisms that expend energy and change it and alter that rock in ever more chaotic ways?

The higher the entropy, the lower the availability of the system's energy to do useful work. How much work does a rock do when compared to living organisms?

Also, "somewhat limited" contributions from outside Earth? When we receive endless solar radiation from the sun, meteors and other space debris in our atmosphere, and a continual dose of radiation from space that's only really blocked out by that same atmosphere? Not to mention all the emissions from other stellar bodies that we continue to receive on Earth after traveling so many lightyears to get here. This is not limited, it's a bombardment from every side. It's just not all immediately detectable by any old guy with a keyboard.

So how does adding heat, radiation and some space rocks turn random chemicals into DNA? Is there a model for how this happens?

[IATIA]

Can you show me a scientific proof that codes form through random activity?

If I could only find it (been looking for years).  Once upon a time, long long ago, there was a PBS special that showed a box of pieces (similar to a puzzle) in which there were 4 types of pieces.  This box was shaken until all the pieces finally came together.

[AJW333]

The Bible correctly predicts

I know for a fact that the work of fiction known as the bible does not accurately predict anything, the same as it never accurately described anything about the earth or how anything works.

Ignorant people wrote about that which they knew nothing, pure and simple.  Adding a super magical sky daddy to the equation does not make it believable.  It merely makes the believers gullible.

How did the Bible know about astronomical realities?

"God asked Job “Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion?” (Job 38:31). In the last century astrophysicists have discovered that the stars of Pleiades move in unison with each other, and are thus gravitationally bound. They have also discovered that the stars in the belt of Orion are free agents that are not gravitationally bound!6 Interestingly, the three stars that comprise Orion's belt appear to be closer  together than the outer stars in the constellation, but are actually farther apart! (they appear closer together because of the 2-D plane we see them in)." http://www.bibleevidences.com/scientif.htm

[The Grand Nudger]

Magic book doesn't know anymore about astronomy than the people who wrote magic book.  Do you think it took magic?  I mean, rather than simply looking up, for example, to ask such questions?

[Esquilax]

What can I say? It appears that the majority of articles denying that DNA is a code are written by people with an agenda - an atheistic one. Since the 1960s DNA has been universally recognised as a code by all of the top experts in the field. The term "coding" is used ALL the time in reference to genetic replication.

It's an analogy used for ease of communication, and again, I did acknowledge that it's a code in a certain sense, but not in the sense that its origins are in coding. It's a code after the fact, when minds can go through it and predict what the chemical compounds will produce based on prior results, but at the time it was forming? No, not a code, just a series of chemical reactions. You're misusing the science on this one.

How about the fact that that random = disordered and code = ordered.  A random code is an oxymoron. Can you show me a scientific proof that codes form through random activity?

Yes. What, did you think it was some impossible task? Ever played a game with random or procedurally generated content? That's a code, delivered at random, played out from a finite list of options... like DNA would have been. Hell, just typing "randomly generated codes" into google gives me a whole first page of non-repeating code generators that pump out random codes for contests and stuff. There are even evolution simulators that begin with randomized sim-organisms and build complex, functional entities from additional random mutations. It's not as crazy as you're making it out to be.

If what you expect random activity to accomplish is way outside the activity that is normally seen and defies scientific explanation, then it's not such an outrageous conclusion to come to.

You're dodging the question again: if we had no answer to give you, would you consider your god to be the default, such that this would be a "win" for you? Or do you recognize that tearing down our position, assuming you're able to do so, would not advance the case you're attempting to advance, here?

The higher the entropy, the lower the availability of the system's energy to do useful work. How much work does a rock do when compared to living organisms?

But we've already established that the rock is not a closed system. It gains outside energy all the time.

So how does adding heat, radiation and some space rocks turn random chemicals into DNA? Is there a model for how this happens?

We were talking about your claim regarding entropy. Please do not now pretend that we were talking about abiogenesis, and not the specific claim you'd made on another front.

As it happens though, we do have experimental data showing that naturally occurring chemicals do spontaneously form into the building blocks of life without outside intervention under certain conditions. The Miller-Urey experiments and Joan Oro's work demonstrate this quite well. Again, your incredulity is born of an inadequate grasp of the science involved, not the unfeasibility of the conclusion.

Now I'll ask you again: do you have any positive evidence that your god was involved, or just more arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity?

[God of Mr. Hanky]

DNA is not a code.

What can I say? It appears that the majority of articles denying that DNA is a code are written by people with an agenda - an atheistic one. Since the 1960s DNA has been universally recognised as a code by all of the top experts in the field. The term "coding" is used ALL the time in reference to genetic replication.

By that logic, maybe DNA doesn't really exist, being the product of a global conspiracy by atheists to disprove your god, which they pursue in between their secret rituals where they dance naked and drink the blood of virgins. Better make sure your tinfoil hat is up to date, or they'll reprogram your brain next.

This argument from analogy isn't new to us, and it's no more fallacious the hundredth time we hear it than it was on the first. The only difference here is that you've front-loaded it with a bald assertion as to the impossibility of a random code with nothing to justify it.

How about the fact that that random = disordered and code = ordered.  A random code is an oxymoron. Can you show me a scientific proof that codes form through random activity?

It's been explained to you 1000x that there is no "code", only chemistry,  and that evolution does not happen through random events. Chemicals behave as they do anywhere, and where the conditions are right, things can happen. You are filibustering for ignorance, and that is the sum of your achievements on this site. If they handed out medals for ignorance, you would fill a starship with them.

[Esquilax]

How about the fact that that random = disordered and code = ordered.  A random code is an oxymoron. Can you show me a scientific proof that codes form through random activity?

Actually, the more I think about this, the more your argument defeats itself. Can I show you a randomly derived code? Are you aware of how mutations work? What they are?

They're randomly introduced changes based on transcription errors in the replication of DNA. If you really want to call DNA a code, then DNA is also your randomly generated code, because the process of mutation is well understood and, at the genetic level, randomized. So if DNA is a code then all modern DNA is an example of a code that is random, yet orderly. Your objection falls away: if you want a live example of a randomized code, just visit a maternity ward and note how the babies there are not just clones of their parents.

[AJW333]

For polymerisation to occur, you have to have a bunch of enzymes which are basically proteins that come from DNA. So how did the first DNA polymerisation reactions happen without the necessary enzymes? Seems like chicken and egg here.

You don't need DNA to get life started. Before that, it got by on RNA,

But RNA is made from DNA is it not?

some of the nucleotide monomers exist in the clay particles which flowing stream water interacts with - yes, it could have been as simple as that, so say the scientists at Cornell U:

So you're saying that ultimately, man came from the clay? Funny that I was being ridiculed earlier on this thread for believing that God made Adam from the dirt.