The Problem with Christians

[AAA]

I didn't say science is not applicable. I also never mentioned the Bible. I also don't think that I said Y and Z couldn't have happened because of rules of science. 

I feel like you are confusing me with someone else, or you just made a whole bunch of straw men.

*sigh*

1. You are very clearly asserting that complex life from chemistry is scientifically impossible.  Yes?  

2. You have disclosed in the past that you are Christian.  I'm sorry for making an assumption that you put at least some stock in the bible.  Am I wrong?

1. No, I would never use the words impossible/prove, however, I think it is very improbable. Also, we weren't even talking about abiogenesis just now, so I don't know that it is relevant. 
2. Of course I put stock in the Bible, but you put a lot of words in my mouth.

[ApeNotKillApe]

You have yet to demonstrate that. If God created everything; then God either created cancer purposefully or didn't correct his mistake, meaning God is either malevolent or incompetent.

What it really seems to boil down to is that because the universe is not perfect, there is no designer? Is that a fair summary of your point? 

Not even slightly. In fact, I have to assume that you deliberately missed the point of what I said, that's how horrendously inaccurate your summary is. The universe is not perfect, therefore the designer is either imperfect itself or created a flawed system on purpose, ergo this designer is either a capricious god or no god at all. 

Also I like I said before, the same laws of chemistry that enable life as we know it to exist also allow molecules to unfavorably interact with DNA to damage it. 

Some design.

Maybe the fact that biological systems are damageable is a sign that we are becoming genetically weaker as a biosphere, which points to the idea that it was once superior in the past. It indicates that we are declining rather than improving.

Some. Design.

[LadyForCamus]

*sigh*

1. You are very clearly asserting that complex life from chemistry is scientifically impossible.  Yes?  

2. You have disclosed in the past that you are Christian.  I'm sorry for making an assumption that you put at least some stock in the bible.  Am I wrong?

1. No, I would never use the words impossible/prove, however, I think it is very improbable. Also, we weren't even talking about abiogenesis just now, so I don't know that it is relevant. 
2. Of course I put stock in the Bible, but you put a lot of words in my mouth.

Sorry, was not trying to put words in your mouth.

Evolution or abiogenesis...any of it...your reasons for believing in a designer are scientific, according to you. Correct?

So, are your reasons for being a Christian also scientific? Do you accept the supernatural claims found in the bible?

[AAA]

What it really seems to boil down to is that because the universe is not perfect, there is no designer? Is that a fair summary of your point? 

Not even slightly. In fact, I have to assume that you deliberately missed the point of what I said, that's how horrendously inaccurate your summary is. The universe is not perfect, therefore the designer is either imperfect itself or created a flawed system on purpose, ergo this designer is either a capricious god or no god at all. 

Also I like I said before, the same laws of chemistry that enable life as we know it to exist also allow molecules to unfavorably interact with DNA to damage it. 

Some design.

Maybe the fact that biological systems are damageable is a sign that we are becoming genetically weaker as a biosphere, which points to the idea that it was once superior in the past. It indicates that we are declining rather than improving.

Some. Design.

Yes I exaggerated your point on purpose, but I think it is essentially what you are doing. The design is pretty much as good as it can get. Some enzymes are actually kinetically perfect, meaning they catabolize reactions as fast as they encounter substrates. There are mechanisms to prevent cancer. I suspect that the reason that genetic diseases occur (i.e. they are not all fixed by DNA repair enzymes) is because having excessive mechanisms to avoid DNA damage would eventually become too energetically costly to the cell. In other words, there is probably a threshold where it would require too much energy (which would decrease the organism's quality of life) in order to manufacture enzymes to prevent all genetic disorders (which also decrease the organism's quality of life). 

In other words, things are optimally designed. You have constraints because improving one aspect impairs the function of another. An easy example to grasp is axon diameter. The larger the axon, the faster the signal. Why not have all axons be 20 cm wide? Because it would cause crowding which would impair the functioning of neighboring cells. Does that make sense?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Yes I exaggerated your point on purpose, but I think it is essentially what you are doing. The design is pretty much as good as it can get. Some enzymes are actually kinetically perfect, meaning they catabolize reactions as fast as they encounter substrates. There are mechanisms to prevent cancer. I suspect that the reason that genetic diseases occur (i.e. they are not all fixed by DNA repair enzymes) is because having excessive mechanisms to avoid DNA damage would eventually become too energetically costly to the cell. In other words, there is probably a threshold where it would require too much energy (which would decrease the organism's quality of life) in order to manufacture enzymes to prevent all genetic disorders (which also decrease the organism's quality of life). 

In other words, things are optimally designed. You have constraints because improving one aspect impairs the function of another. An easy example to grasp is axon diameter. The larger the axon, the faster the signal. Why not have all axons be 20 cm wide? Because it would cause crowding which would impair the functioning of neighboring cells. Does that make sense?

Who put you in the position of rating the universe's functionality? The design is as good as it can get compared to what?

[AAA]

1. No, I would never use the words impossible/prove, however, I think it is very improbable. Also, we weren't even talking about abiogenesis just now, so I don't know that it is relevant. 
2. Of course I put stock in the Bible, but you put a lot of words in my mouth.

Sorry, was not trying to put words in your mouth.  

Evolution or abiogenesis...any of it...your reasons for believing in a designer are scientific, according to you.  Correct?  

So, are your reasons for being a Christian also scientific?  Do you accept the supernatural claims found in the bible?

Yes, my reasons for believing in a designer I feel are scientific. 

My reasons for being a Christian are not scientific in the empirical sense of the word, but it is still mostly based on evidence. For example, I saw a lecture given by a man named Rick Larson who (using digital software) looked at cosmological features occurring during the time of Jesus's birth/ crucifixion and noticed incredibly rare astronomical events that coincided with things described in the Bible. I know it sounds very sketchy, and I was skeptical at first too, but it was one of the most interesting videos I have seen in a while. I can post the link if you want. Atheist or not, it is worth an hour of your time. 

And I am skeptical of some of the supernatural claims in the Bible. If you are asking me if I think God has ever intervened, then I would say yes.

[AAA]

Yes I exaggerated your point on purpose, but I think it is essentially what you are doing. The design is pretty much as good as it can get. Some enzymes are actually kinetically perfect, meaning they catabolize reactions as fast as they encounter substrates. There are mechanisms to prevent cancer. I suspect that the reason that genetic diseases occur (i.e. they are not all fixed by DNA repair enzymes) is because having excessive mechanisms to avoid DNA damage would eventually become too energetically costly to the cell. In other words, there is probably a threshold where it would require too much energy (which would decrease the organism's quality of life) in order to manufacture enzymes to prevent all genetic disorders (which also decrease the organism's quality of life). 

In other words, things are optimally designed. You have constraints because improving one aspect impairs the function of another. An easy example to grasp is axon diameter. The larger the axon, the faster the signal. Why not have all axons be 20 cm wide? Because it would cause crowding which would impair the functioning of neighboring cells. Does that make sense?

Who put you in the position of rating the universe's functionality? The design is as good as it can get compared to what?

Who are you to rate the universe's functionality? You're doing it too. And the design is as good as it can get compared to theoretical alternatives. What do you expect to see in cellular biology 100 million years from now that they do not yet have?

[rexbeccarox]

Sorry, was not trying to put words in your mouth.  

Evolution or abiogenesis...any of it...your reasons for believing in a designer are scientific, according to you.  Correct?  

So, are your reasons for being a Christian also scientific?  Do you accept the supernatural claims found in the bible?

Yes, my reasons for believing in a designer I feel are scientific. 

My reasons for being a Christian are not scientific in the empirical sense of the word, but it is still mostly based on evidence. For example, I saw a lecture given by a man named Rick Larson who (using digital software) looked at cosmological features occurring during the time of Jesus's birth/ crucifixion and noticed incredibly rare astronomical events that coincided with things described in the Bible. I know it sounds very sketchy, and I was skeptical at first too, but it was one of the most interesting videos I have seen in a while. I can post the link if you want. Atheist or not, it is worth an hour of your time. 

And I am skeptical of some of the supernatural claims in the Bible. If you are asking me if I think God has ever intervened, then I would say yes.

I think you missed the question. There is nothing scientific at all about that. "I feel" is not an acceptable opener to "are scientific".

Not. Science.

[ApeNotKillApe]

Who put you in the position of rating the universe's functionality? The design is as good as it can get compared to what?

Who are you to rate the universe's functionality? You're doing it too. And the design is as good as it can get compared to theoretical alternatives. What do you expect to see in cellular biology 100 million years from now that they do not yet have?

The difference is that I'm pointing it out the lack of deliberate design to indicate the lack of deliberate design, while you are pointing out what you have admitted is a flawed design that innately enables suffering and claiming it's evidence of a perfect, all-knowing benevolent designer.

[LadyForCamus]

Sorry, was not trying to put words in your mouth.  

Evolution or abiogenesis...any of it...your reasons for believing in a designer are scientific, according to you.  Correct?  

So, are your reasons for being a Christian also scientific?  Do you accept the supernatural claims found in the bible?

Yes, my reasons for believing in a designer I feel are scientific. 

My reasons for being a Christian are not scientific in the empirical sense of the word, but it is still mostly based on evidence. For example, I saw a lecture given by a man named Rick Larson who (using digital software) looked at cosmological features occurring during the time of Jesus's birth/ crucifixion and noticed incredibly rare astronomical events that coincided with things described in the Bible. I know it sounds very sketchy, and I was skeptical at first too, but it was one of the most interesting videos I have seen in a while. I can post the link if you want. Atheist or not, it is worth an hour of your time. 

And I am skeptical of some of the supernatural claims in the Bible. If you are asking me if I think God has ever intervened, then I would say yes.

Okay, so these scientific constraints that you perceive are what lead you to conclude a designer, but in terms of your Christianity; your faith; you are intellectually comfortable with ignoring these restraints, in at least some cases? You don't see this as a major contradiction in the way that you evaluate your reality?