The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

So it is the existence of design that proves the existence of a designer. 

So what evidence led you to conclude the existence of design? You're being remarkably evasive on this point: don't you have any?

Evidence of design would include any multi-part system but let's go with the human eye, a topic you've probably debated many times before, so I'll hopefully be taking a different approach. Here is a brief description of the major parts of the eye.

Anterior chamber: The chamber between the back surface of the cornea and the front surface of the lens. The anterior chamber holds the aqueous.

Aqueous humour: Clear watery liquid that fills the anterior chamber of the eye; helps to maintain pressure and feeds the cornea with nutrients to keep it healthy.

Blind spot: Small area of the retina where the optic nerve leaves the eye: any image falling here will not be seen.

Choroid: Thin tissue layer containing blood vessels, sandwiched between the sclera and retina; also, because of the high melanocytes content, the choroid acts as a light-absorbing layer.

Ciliary muscles: The muscle that controls the small fibres that hold the lens in place. The ciliary muscle controls the shape of the lens as it narrows and thickens to focus on objects at different distances.

Lens: The lens is found behind the pupil. The function of the lens is the change the focus of the eye so that we can see things close up. A health lens looks clear and transparent. Sometimes the lens can become cloudy and prevent light getting through. This is called cataract. If there is a lot of cataract, we can sometimes see the lens because the pupil looks white instead of black.

Macula: Small central area of the retina that provides the finest vision. We use this for fine work and reading. The macular naturally degenerates over time, called age-related macular degeneration.

Optic nerve: Made up of over 1.1 million nerve cells, the optic nerve is like a cable that carries visual signals made by the retina all the way to the back of the brain.

Retina: Layer of tissue on the back of the eye that contains cells responsive to light (photoreceptors). The nerves of the retina change the light to messages that travel to the brain to make the images that we can see.

Sclera: The white, tough, outer layer of the eyeball; made from very strong connective tissue and is continuous with the cornea.  The sclera acts like a shell for the eye and gives the eyeball its shape. You can see the front part of the slera through the conjunctiva. Extraocular muscles attach to the sclera to move the eye.

Vitreous humour: Clear, jelly-like fluid that fills eye. The vitreous helps the eye to keep its shape. It makes a clear pathway for the light as it travels from the lens to the retina.  https://www.hollows.org.nz/eye-health/an...vAodYZ8MDQ

What we have is an integrated system of many parts and each part is supposedly a product of random genetic mutation. However, on their own, the vast majority of these mutations would have been useless, since they are dependent on the other parts in order to function. For instance, you could have a perfectly formed eye, but with no optic nerve you won't see anything, and even if you had an optic nerve, you still couldn't see unless you had millions of neurons, with hundreds of millions of connections in the brain to interpret and process the data.

So what are the chances that random mutations (of the sex cell)s could write the code for a complete visual system? I would say none. As I demonstrated with the haemaglobin example, the chances of randomly generating the correct sequence of amino acids to create this one protein was one in 10 to the power of 650. But now we have to have a very large number of random mutations to produce thousands of different proteins required to make vision possible. If we look at a tiny part of the whole visual system, the aqueous humor, we see that it contains hundreds of different proteins,

"Proteomic analysis of hAH identified 676 nonredundant proteins. More than 80% of these proteins are novel identifications.". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066620/

We also need to know what the average protein size is;

"The average human gene contains 4 exons totaling 1,350 base pairs and thus encodes an average protein of 450 amino acids". http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultrane...H/HGP.html

So what is the statistical probability that random mutations of the DNA would end up coding for the 676 proteins found in the aqueous humor? That would be (on average) one in twenty multiplied by one in twenty, 450 times for each protein, multiplied by 676 for the total number of proteins. Since 10 to the power of 50 is considered absurd, and the chances of correctly constructing each of the 676 proteins by chance is vastly more than 10 to the power of 50, this equates to zero probability that the aqueous humor proteins could develop by random chance.

Bear in mind that the AH proteins are a tiny part of the visual system, the chances of having random DNA mutations being responsible for the thousands of essential protein components in the rest of the visual system is just plain absurd.

[LadyForCamus]

So what evidence led you to conclude the existence of design? You're being remarkably evasive on this point: don't you have any?

Evidence of design would include any multi-part system but let's go with the human eye, a topic you've probably debated many times before, so I'll hopefully be taking a different approach. Here is a brief description of the major parts of the eye.

Anterior chamber: The chamber between the back surface of the cornea and the front surface of the lens. The anterior chamber holds the aqueous.

Aqueous humour: Clear watery liquid that fills the anterior chamber of the eye; helps to maintain pressure and feeds the cornea with nutrients to keep it healthy.

Blind spot: Small area of the retina where the optic nerve leaves the eye: any image falling here will not be seen.

Choroid: Thin tissue layer containing blood vessels, sandwiched between the sclera and retina; also, because of the high melanocytes content, the choroid acts as a light-absorbing layer.

Ciliary muscles: The muscle that controls the small fibres that hold the lens in place. The ciliary muscle controls the shape of the lens as it narrows and thickens to focus on objects at different distances.

Lens: The lens is found behind the pupil. The function of the lens is the change the focus of the eye so that we can see things close up. A health lens looks clear and transparent. Sometimes the lens can become cloudy and prevent light getting through. This is called cataract. If there is a lot of cataract, we can sometimes see the lens because the pupil looks white instead of black.

Macula: Small central area of the retina that provides the finest vision. We use this for fine work and reading. The macular naturally degenerates over time, called age-related macular degeneration.

Optic nerve: Made up of over 1.1 million nerve cells, the optic nerve is like a cable that carries visual signals made by the retina all the way to the back of the brain.

Retina: Layer of tissue on the back of the eye that contains cells responsive to light (photoreceptors). The nerves of the retina change the light to messages that travel to the brain to make the images that we can see.

Sclera: The white, tough, outer layer of the eyeball; made from very strong connective tissue and is continuous with the cornea.  The sclera acts like a shell for the eye and gives the eyeball its shape. You can see the front part of the slera through the conjunctiva. Extraocular muscles attach to the sclera to move the eye.

Vitreous humour: Clear, jelly-like fluid that fills eye. The vitreous helps the eye to keep its shape. It makes a clear pathway for the light as it travels from the lens to the retina.  https://www.hollows.org.nz/eye-health/an...vAodYZ8MDQ

What we have is an integrated system of many parts and each part is supposedly a product of random genetic mutation. However, on their own, the vast majority of these mutations would have been useless, since they are dependent on the other parts in order to function. For instance, you could have a perfectly formed eye, but with no optic nerve you won't see anything, and even if you had an optic nerve, you still couldn't see unless you had millions of neurons, with hundreds of millions of connections in the brain to interpret and process the data.

So what are the chances that random mutations (of the sex cell)s could write the code for a complete visual system? I would say none. As I demonstrated with the haemaglobin example, the chances of randomly generating the correct sequence of amino acids to create this one protein was one in 10 to the power of 650. But now we have to have a very large number of random mutations to produce thousands of different proteins required to make vision possible. If we look at a tiny part of the whole visual system, the aqueous humor, we see that it contains hundreds of different proteins,

"Proteomic analysis of hAH identified 676 nonredundant proteins. More than 80% of these proteins are novel identifications.". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066620/

We also need to know what the average protein size is;

"The average human gene contains 4 exons totaling 1,350 base pairs and thus encodes an average protein of 450 amino acids". http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultrane...H/HGP.html

So what is the statistical probability that random mutations of the DNA would end up coding for the 676 proteins found in the aqueous humor? That would be (on average) one in twenty multiplied by one in twenty, 450 times for each protein, multiplied by 676 for the total number of proteins. Since 10 to the power of 50 is considered absurd, and the chances of correctly constructing each of the 676 proteins by chance is vastly more than 10 to the power of 50, this equates to zero probability that the aqueous humor proteins could develop by random chance.

Bear in mind that the AH proteins are a tiny part of the visual system, the chances of having random DNA mutations being responsible for the thousands of essential protein components in the rest of the visual system is just plain absurd.

I suck at math, but clearly this is a very, very, very, VERY long argument from personal incredulity. You could have just said, "the human eye is just fucking craaaaazy, you guys!" Would have conveyed the exact same point, and saved all of us a lot of time.

[Ravenshire]

So what evidence led you to conclude the existence of design? You're being remarkably evasive on this point: don't you have any?

Evidence of design would include any multi-part system but let's go with the human eye, a topic you've probably debated many times before, so I'll hopefully be taking a different approach. Here is a brief description of the major parts of the eye.

Anterior chamber: The chamber between the back surface of the cornea and the front surface of the lens. The anterior chamber holds the aqueous.

Aqueous humour: Clear watery liquid that fills the anterior chamber of the eye; helps to maintain pressure and feeds the cornea with nutrients to keep it healthy.

Blind spot: Small area of the retina where the optic nerve leaves the eye: any image falling here will not be seen.

Choroid: Thin tissue layer containing blood vessels, sandwiched between the sclera and retina; also, because of the high melanocytes content, the choroid acts as a light-absorbing layer.

Ciliary muscles: The muscle that controls the small fibres that hold the lens in place. The ciliary muscle controls the shape of the lens as it narrows and thickens to focus on objects at different distances.

Lens: The lens is found behind the pupil. The function of the lens is the change the focus of the eye so that we can see things close up. A health lens looks clear and transparent. Sometimes the lens can become cloudy and prevent light getting through. This is called cataract. If there is a lot of cataract, we can sometimes see the lens because the pupil looks white instead of black.

Macula: Small central area of the retina that provides the finest vision. We use this for fine work and reading. The macular naturally degenerates over time, called age-related macular degeneration.

Optic nerve: Made up of over 1.1 million nerve cells, the optic nerve is like a cable that carries visual signals made by the retina all the way to the back of the brain.

Retina: Layer of tissue on the back of the eye that contains cells responsive to light (photoreceptors). The nerves of the retina change the light to messages that travel to the brain to make the images that we can see.

Sclera: The white, tough, outer layer of the eyeball; made from very strong connective tissue and is continuous with the cornea.  The sclera acts like a shell for the eye and gives the eyeball its shape. You can see the front part of the slera through the conjunctiva. Extraocular muscles attach to the sclera to move the eye.

Vitreous humour: Clear, jelly-like fluid that fills eye. The vitreous helps the eye to keep its shape. It makes a clear pathway for the light as it travels from the lens to the retina.  https://www.hollows.org.nz/eye-health/an...vAodYZ8MDQ

What we have is an integrated system of many parts and each part is supposedly a product of random  genetic mutation. However, on their own, the vast majority of these mutations would have been useless, since they are dependent on the other parts in order to function. For instance, you could have a perfectly formed eye, but with no optic nerve you won't see anything, and even if you had an optic nerve, you still couldn't see unless you had millions of neurons, with hundreds of millions of connections in the brain to interpret and process the data.

So what are the chances that random mutations (of the sex cell)s could write the code for a complete visual system? I would say none. As I demonstrated with the haemaglobin example, the chances of randomly generating the correct sequence of amino acids to create this one protein was one in 10 to the power of 650. But now we have to have a very large number of random mutations to produce thousands of different proteins required to make vision possible. If we look at a tiny part of the whole visual system, the aqueous humor, we see that it contains hundreds of different proteins,

"Proteomic analysis of hAH identified 676 nonredundant proteins. More than 80% of these proteins are novel identifications.". http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066620/

We also need to know what the average protein size is;

"The average human gene contains 4 exons totaling 1,350 base pairs and thus encodes an average protein of 450 amino acids". http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultrane...H/HGP.html

So what is the statistical probability that random mutations of the DNA would end up coding for the 676 proteins found in the aqueous humor? That would be (on average) one in twenty multiplied by one in twenty, 450 times for each protein, multiplied by 676 for the total number of proteins. Since 10 to the power of 50 is considered absurd, and the chances of correctly constructing each of the 676 proteins by chance is vastly more than 10 to the power of 50, this equates to zero probability that the aqueous humor proteins could develop by random chance.

Bear in mind that the AH proteins are a tiny part of the visual system, the chances of having random DNA mutations being responsible for the thousands of essential protein components in the rest of the visual system is just plain absurd.

You're going with the eye to support your creator, eh? Ok then, why does your creator love Octopi more than humans? It gave them a far superior eye.

[Kitan Etos]

[loganonekenobi]

the complexity of life logic for the existence of a deity is good but it stops at logic. This is still not true evidence. The religious say "god" and often "my particular god" but a true scholar of the facts would simply says "I dont know for sure"

Of the two claims one is teetering on the edge of falsehood and arrogance. The other is on solid ground and humble.

One does not need belief to say "I don't know" and still be within the observable facts.

[JuliaL]

[Cecelia]

Actually the complexity of the human eye is a good argument against design. Why would a designer make something more complicated than necessary? The only reason a designer would make something so complicated is because they have limitations. This goes against the Christian God who is said to have made man from Dirt. That's magic. It doesn't state that he created the human eye with intricate precision. It doesn't say that he had limitations. Yet if there were a designer, they would have to have limitations in order to have done things the way they did.

The argument from complexity doesn't work when your God doesn't have limitations. A designed eye from a creator without limitations, who could make man out of dirt and woman from rib would not have such limitations. He would have created the very laws he's working with.

Then you have to consider: The Bible states we were made in his image. If he looks like us, and we appear designed, then he too must appear designed. So who designed him? If he wasn't designed, why is his eye less complex than ours? Was he restricted by laws he didn't create? Or does his eyes work the same as ours, and thus give an appearance of design?

[Panatheist]

Actually the complexity of the human eye is a good argument against design.  Why would a designer make something more complicated than necessary?  The only reason a designer would make something so complicated is because they have limitations.  This goes against the Christian God who is said to have made man from Dirt.  That's magic.  It doesn't state that he created the human eye with intricate precision.  It doesn't say that he had limitations.  Yet if there were a designer, they would have to have limitations in order to have done things the way they did.  

The argument from complexity doesn't work when your God doesn't have limitations.  A designed eye from a creator without limitations, who could make man out of dirt and woman from rib would not have such limitations.  He would have created the very laws he's working with.

Then you have to consider: The Bible states we were made in his image.  If he looks like us, and we appear designed, then he too must appear designed.   So who designed him?  If he wasn't designed, why is his eye less complex than ours?  Was he restricted by laws he didn't create?  Or does his eyes work the same as ours, and thus give an appearance of design?

From my reading of the Hebrew Bible as well as excellent Jewish commentary I am inclined to think that in some older portions of the Torah God is actually a physical being with a body at the head of a council of gods.  Thus humans were made "in our image."

[Kitan Etos]

The only logical explanation is that gods were made in man's image.

[Bob Kelso]

Edit: Sorry, confused him with Atlas. It's been a long day. XD