The Problem with Christians

[TheRocketSurgeon]

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!

You have no science degree, you have made it clear.

Anyone who knows a modicum of biochemistry is aware that:

1) The chemical reactions you call "artificial" are not done by hand, but my setting conditions so that the reaction occurs automatically under those conditions. We know how it works based on the physics model of Atomic Theory, which is why we are able to accurately simulate nature. When you ask "does that occur in nature?", you're demonstrating an ignorance of how chem labs even operate.

2) We've covered the fact that some mutations ARE beneficial, even though most are not. The fact that you are refusing to acknowledge this simple fact tells me you're more interested in spreading Creationist propaganda than actually understanding science. Every person who continues to even talk to you about this subject after such a display of ignorance should instead be expressing sympathy to you for your crippling ignorance. 

That you would refer to someone who grasps the laws of physics/chemistry/biochem (under Atomic Theory) as having to have an "enormous amount of faith" shows us the type of damage your religion has done to your brain.

Here's a hug. It must be hard for you, out there.

[Esquilax]

So have you found that scientific proof that your god was involved yet, or are you still just attempting to tear down everyone else to your level?

I have two choices, one is to believe that amazingly complex living systems created themselves via random activity, or that each of these systems has a unique design from an external creative source. You believe that the odds of the former are acceptable and I believe the odds are far better for the latter.

You continue to dodge the question, which isn't surprising by this point, but you also aren't able to cover for your critical weak spot: there are more than two choices. In the scenario you describe- and apparently I'm just going to have to go with the fact that you have no positive evidence, since if you did you'd have presented it by now- then the odds don't matter at all. In the absence of positive evidence for a position, even if you don't like the odds for a falsely dichotomous alternative (and I'll get into why that is something you've chosen ignorantly in a moment) then the position is "I don't know," not "I know it's god." Assuming that your statements are absolutely correct, and that you aren't actually baselessly dismissing one option (you are, but we'll get there next) then what you have, by your own evasive admission, two positions with zero evidence behind them. You don't then get to assign the other alternative a positive value without evidence simply because you like it better: your god is not some default position. In the absence of evidence for any other alternative, you still don't have anything to rationally accept the god claim with.

Moreover, I'd very much like to know how you determined your "odds" in this case, considering you've failed to present any evidence at all for your god (meaning you don't have anything with which to derive a positive probability for your god) and are dismissing mountains of peer reviewed scientific data for abiogenesis based solely on an argument from ignorance ("you can't explain X, therefore your position can't be true"). So, you're using a fallacy to ignore the presence of things that actually lend a positive probability to a position, while assuming a positive probability for a position that has nothing to indicate that it even exists, with no justification at all. It's like you don't even know what odds are, it's just a rhetorical device to you without any connection to any of the methods for deriving a probability that actually exist. You theists, you do this all the time, talking about probabilities and possibilities, without ever even attempting to demonstrate the math that led you to those probabilities in the first place. You just want us to accept it by fiat, as if there aren't any real ways to determine probabilities other than baseless gut feelings.

Sorry, not gonna happen.

Oh, by the way? How did you determine there were only two possibilities? Can you even tell me how you've ruled out an unknown alternative? Or panspermia? Multiverse theory? Literally anything else, other than the one possibility you've presupposed, and the other that you've simply asserted without justification, based solely on your own ignorance and incredulity, is impossible? Just because you won't consider anything else, doesn't mean there are only two options, even if your fiat nothing were actually a rational argument.

[Minimalist]

I have two choices, one is to believe that amazingly complex living systems created themselves via random activity, or that each of these systems has a unique design from an external creative source.

As a matter of fact, Esq, it sounds as if he doesn't even understand the question.  Willful ignorance, perhaps?

[Esquilax]

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.

Actually, it is silly, given that what you're saying isn't, you know, true? Your lack of knowledge on this subject is really very embarrassing: you asked in an earlier post "how many mothers wish that their babies have genetic mutations?" and in turn, I have a question for you: do you know how many mothers are going to have babies with genetic mutations?

All of them.

I mean, hell, man, did you even look this up before you spoke? Human beings have about sixty genetic mutations from birth, inescapably. We gain more the longer we live. The vast majority of mutations are small and entirely neutral: my hyper-extending elbows are mutations, and they haven't done me any damage. I know the popular, uninformed conception of mutations are the big, dramatic ones, but as usual, the reality is far more low key and, well, realistic. Unless you're a direct clone of your parents, every single difference in appearance between you and your parents are mutations. I'm taller than anyone in my family: mutation. Big feet? Mutation. And so on.

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.

We don't tend to see that. You don't even see that, because I'm fairly convinced you've never so much as attempted to look.

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!

Perhaps you should have bothered to find out what mutations are before you decided what they can and cannot do, next time? Aren't you embarrassed with yourself?

[Cyberman]

Can I just point out that when presented with two or more options from which to choose, you don't have two or more choices; you still only have one choice, from multiple options. Thank you.

[Esquilax]

Can I just point out that when presented with two or more options from which to choose, you don't have two or more choices; you still only have one choice, from multiple options. Thank you.

And also, when you're talking about an event that's already happened, you don't have any choices or odds at all. The probability of one event happening is one hundred percent, given that it, you know, happened, and the odds for the other are zero percent, because it did not. Regardless of how probable anyone might think an event is in the main, those odds aren't at issue because we aren't actually determining what event might happen in future based on the odds. We're determining what has already happened, which is why you follow the physical evidence to form a conclusion based on what it suggests, not pick based on probabilities, even if you've accurately determined what those probabilities might be.

Basically, if I flip a coin and want to know how it landed, the way to do that is not to ignore the coin and assert that it must have landed on heads because it's more improbable that it would land on its edge instead.

[AJW333]

What it says is that the belief in God is not so far away from what many scientists are believing, ie that other dimensions exist and that intelligent entities may exist therein.

Outside your neat little circle you don't impress anyone with your definitions straight from the lexicon. They don't rule the possibility out, based on their SCIENTIFIC knowledge and findings. I hope, you get the distincition between possibility, worthy of being investigated and belief. And, I may repeat, how does that make your case?

And please take note of the capitals, since that's what you failed to provide so far.

How do you reconcile the theories of extra dimensions and SCIENTIFIC fact? No one's proven that they exist but yet many scientists are convinced that they are real. 

If there is no God then take Alistair Crowley's mantra and go with that;

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"

Which is the usual bully response. Can't make your case, resort to punches.

A less polite individual might call it the idiot's response. But far be that from me.

It's not a "bully response" but a logical extension. If there is no afterlife and no accountability to any divine judge then do whatever you want, what difference does it make?

[Cyberman]

How do you reconcile the theories of extra dimensions and SCIENTIFIC fact? No one's proven that they exist but yet many scientists are convinced that they are real.

What someone - even scientists - believe is irrelevant. What they can show to be true is not. That you keep referring to "many scientists" but haven't given even one name or published paper that we can factcheck is revealing. It's like that bit in the bible where Jesus invents the "yo momma" joke.

[abaris]

How do you reconcile the theories of extra dimensions and SCIENTIFIC fact? No one's proven that they exist but yet many scientists are convinced that they are real. 

Are you quite capable of reading? Can you make a distinction between possibility and fact? If the answer is yes, you're halfway there. It's a possibility worthy of being investigated. Not according to me, but according to people who know their stuff. Possibility and worthy of being investigating isn't fact. Got it?

Good. So it should be quite clear, there nothing to reconcile.

[Esquilax]

How do you reconcile the theories of extra dimensions and SCIENTIFIC fact? No one's proven that they exist but yet many scientists are convinced that they are real. 

Are you... are you seriously stressing the word "theory" as if to draw a distinction between them and facts? As in, "it's just a theory!"?



Dude, you really need to actually do even cursory research into the basics of what you're talking about before you decide you're sufficiently conversant with it to form a cogent position on it. Here, let me do it for you in this case: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." A theory in science isn't distinct from a fact, a theory is made of multiple facts, posed as an explanation of why they happen.

So to be clear: you have a position on certain aspects of biology that disagrees with the supported, mainstream conclusions of countless trained scientists... despite not understanding basic elements not only of the subject itself, but science in general. And you want us to take this seriously because you can't think of a solution to various problems with the science that you have, but apparently have not bothered to research before deciding that no answer exists.

Wow.

It's not a "bully response" but a logical extension. If there is no afterlife and no accountability to any divine judge then do whatever you want, what difference does it make?

If there's an afterlife and accountability to a divine judge that'll grant you an unlimited pardon so long as you believe the right things and bow and scrape, like your god does, then the same question could be posed to you: since the entirety of your religious salvation is predicated on escape from accountability via a sacrifice that has already been made and can absolve you of any crime so long as you accept it, why aren't you doing whatever you want, what difference does it make?

In my case, I've got about seven billion people on this planet that I'm accountable to, some of them including friends and family that I don't want to lose, and future generations, who will inherit the planet after I'm gone. That's a much more solid level of accountability than some god you can't even demonstrate exists, who's already given you a free pass for life, if your religion is to be believed. All of the spooky argument from consequences fallacies you theists lob our way are either not solved by your religion, or made worse were your religion true.

It's actually a little sad, the way you'll thoughtlessly toss out these arguments without even thinking them through all the way.