The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

I've no idea why you would want to go and shoot yourself in the foot like that. You've just made a grand statement with zero evidence and in the next breath, you mock those who say they believe that the universe has a creator (a statement for which there is much evidence.)

Let me make this VERY clear for you.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence for the existence of god.

Therefore, for me to state what I did is closer to reality than anything religion could ever offer.

No evidence for a creator? The human genetic code is 3,000,000,000 bits long and somehow this code either wrote itself or developed itself by endless mutations that would normally cause a decrease in information and increase the risk of death and disability. You have to have so much faith in the process of positive mutation that it makes far more sense to believe the code was written by an intelligent creator.

How many pregnant women are hoping that their baby has a mutation in their DNA? None I would imagine because the end result is overwhelmingly negative. So if our real, actual experience of DNA mutation amounts to a pile of crap, why would you believe that  it lead to the development of such an amazingly complex and functional code? As a process, mutation of the human DNA has very little, if anything going for it.

[Foxaèr]

No evidence for a creator?

Correct, the rest of what you posted was just you being absolutely silly in thinking that you had anything of real substance to present toward your cause.

[Ryantology]

No evidence for a creator? The human genetic code is 3,000,000,000 bits long and somehow this code either wrote itself or developed itself by endless mutations that would normally cause a decrease in information and increase the risk of death and disability. You have to have so much faith in the process of positive mutation that it makes far more sense to believe the code was written by an intelligent creator.

Until you realize that this intelligent creator had to come out of nowhere or be created by some even greater being (which would itself have to have been created by an even greater being, ad infinitum), which adds an infinite number of extra layers of unimaginable unlikelihood.

Look at the language you are using, and see the biases inherent in that language. DNA has a 'code' only in the sense that its structure is analogous to the sort of code people create. This analog is not proof that DNA was created in the same way that computer code is created.

Furthermore, most mutations do indeed increase death and disability. It's only the rare beneficial mutations which stick around.

How many pregnant women are hoping that their baby has a mutation in their DNA? None I would imagine because the end result is overwhelmingly negative. So if our real, actual experience of DNA mutation amounts to a pile of crap, why would you believe that  it lead to the development of such an amazingly complex and functional code? As a process, mutation of the human DNA has very little, if anything going for it.

Shouldn't the more cogent question be, why hasn't God debugged his code more thoroughly?

[pocaracas]

Why did you stop reading at that and miss the part I quoted from that article?
“The nice thing [about the current study] is this is a demonstration of self-assembly in water,”... thus providing a mechanism to skip that difficulty where you got stuck.

"These "proto-RNA bases" spontaneously assemble into gene-length linear stacks, suggesting that the genes of life could have gotten started from these or similar molecules................. Hud's group knew that they were on to something when they added a small chemical tail to a proto-RNA base and saw it spontaneously form linear assemblies with another proto-RNA base."

I would like to know what the small chemical tail was. Was it something that naturally occurs in nature or a manufactured substance?

So if I were to summarize what the article is saying, it would be; "the molecules required to form RNA don't  spontaneously form in water but we found some other chemicals that do so we think RNA formed from these, but we've no idea how that happened." It's not exactly compelling evidence.

Yep... Keep moving the goal posts...
It is known that science hasn't cracked the exact mechanism. I've told you that a few times already.
With this, the best we can say, right now, is that we don't know how it happened.
What we do see around us is only natural processes operating, so it is to be expected that only those were in operation way back when life got started.

In other news, speciation has been observed in the lab and no god was required for it to happen... Just enough generations... Not exactly something feasible with humans...

[downbeatplumb]

There biggest problem is that they are too nice, and don't sway from moral absolutes. On Tuesdays I identify as a dog, and demand everyone bow to my demands and take me on walks every two hours while at work, but no one will help me so I'm forced to poop and pee on the floor which is just embarrassing, and in a way I feel I'm the victim. As a result I've started howling at the beautiful women that walk by my office, and every time they look at me like I'm the one offending them, I lift my leg and mark my territory to dominate everyone I come in contact with. Although I tend to scoot my ass across the floor to the vending machine which is not built for dogs so I have to submit to human privilege once again, I still manage to hold my tongue, until it's time to lick my ass.

You know what, I believe you.

[downbeatplumb]

Let me make this VERY clear for you.

There is absolutely ZERO evidence for the existence of god.

Therefore, for me to state what I did is closer to reality than anything religion could ever offer.

No evidence for a creator? The human genetic code is 3,000,000,000 bits long and somehow this code either wrote itself or developed itself by endless mutations that would normally cause a decrease in information and increase the risk of death and disability. You have to have so much faith in the process of positive mutation that it makes far more sense to believe the code was written by an intelligent creator.

How many pregnant women are hoping that their baby has a mutation in their DNA? None I would imagine because the end result is overwhelmingly negative. So if our real, actual experience of DNA mutation amounts to a pile of crap, why would you believe that  it lead to the development of such an amazingly complex and functional code? As a process, mutation of the human DNA has very little, if anything going for it.

Everyone has mutations most are benign some are harmful others useful.
http://www.livescience.com/33347-mutants...tions.html
But mostly the time when mutations made a difference is in the past by now we can get the same effects by turning off and on gene sequences, it is why some people are born with tails. If ever a tail would give us an evolutionary advantage they'd come back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfwMjTcaz64

[robvalue]

Ancient man didn't have any impressive knowledge. It's all retrofitting garbage.

In the bible, they thought the world was the universe. Clearly. They thought the sky was a "firmament". They were completely and utterly wrong.

Anyone can make shit up, and anyone can try and see truth in that shit if they really want to believe in it. People believe horoscopes, even though it reduces us to just a few types of people.

If we're talking about what's likely, it's extremely likely that abiogenesis happened naturally. Scientists are not far off. But now the criteria change, and "not 100% sure" becomes "Ignore everything and make up any old bollocks".

[GUBU]

So, a blog, not providing any links to any kind of scientific finds. Good job, but that's not what I meant with "serious".

What kind of "scientific finds" are we talking about? I thought the article was quite good.

Given that the article is composed od baseless assertion and ciruclar reasoning, it is actually shit.

[AJW333]

No evidence for a creator?

Correct, the rest of what you posted was just you being absolutely silly in thinking that you had anything of real substance to present toward your cause.

Plenty of substance that you choose to ignore. Is it "silly" to say that our  actual experience of genetic mutation in humans is overwhelmingly negative? Absolutely not.

Is it "silly" to question how a 3 billion piece code mutated itself into existence when all we tend to see is mutation doing damage to human DNA? Absolutely not.

Does it take an enormous amount of faith on your part to believe that a fundamentally damaging process to human DNA is responsible for vastly improving it? Abso-frigging-lutely!

[downbeatplumb]

Correct, the rest of what you posted was just you being absolutely silly in thinking that you had anything of real substance to present toward your cause.

Plenty of substance that you choose to ignore. Is it "silly" to say that our  actual experience of genetic mutation in humans is overwhelmingly negative? Absolutely not.

Is it "silly" to question how a 3 billion piece code mutated itself into existence when all we tend to see is mutation doing damage to human DNA? Absolutely not.

Does it take an enormous amount of faith on your part to believe that a fundamentally damaging process to human DNA is responsible for vastly improving it? Abso-frigging-lutely!

I see your problem, you lack education on the subject. Initially life evolved ever so slowly for billions of years only single celled organisms because of the rarety of useful mutations, Then creatures started to screw and that made evolution so much easier so in a few hundred million years from then you get us. There are six billion humans each with multiple mutations and most at some point sharing their dna with others. there you go, your "silly" question resolved without the need for an impossible magic man in the sky.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KO8CTVH7Law