Christian BS

[cryptodevil]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

I think the claim towards the existence of an all-powerful super-being qualifies as extraordinary.

[1714842254]

1714842254

[1714842254]

1714842254

[awesome31312]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

I think the claim towards the existence of an all-powerful super-being qualifies as extraordinary.

What about human DNA?

[BADecker]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

I think the claim towards the existence of an all-powerful super-being qualifies as extraordinary.

What about human DNA?

YES!

The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature put this life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

[cryptodevil]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

I think the claim towards the existence of an all-powerful super-being qualifies as extraordinary.

What about human DNA?

YES!

. . .the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

So just because you can't wrap your head around it . . .ALIENS!!!!1!!!!, erm I mean, GOD!!!!1!!!!!!!

You have just asserted something you have no business asserting because it is based solely on your lack of intelligence/education

The ONLY way? Or just A way, if you were to ignore all the other, rational and reasonable, cause-and-effect explanations that already exist to describe the things you want to invoke a deity for.

If nature put this life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

Again, you've just asserted something as though it were a fact, it is not, it is simply a bold assertion based on your assumption that what you are saying sounds right to you so it must be correct.

The Universe is Billions of years old, a timeframe you are struggling to comprehend. Add, then, the untold actions and interactions of temperatures and pressures and forces and elements that combine over this time to create the building blocks of biological life.

It didn't need to go from zero-to-superhero, it need only be an incremental series of advances. Which is exactly what is observed and understood about the process.

I bet you're invoking the "Junkyard tornado" fallacy where it is claimed the human eyeball existing is like a tornado ripping through a junkyard and 'accidentally' assembling a fully-functional Boeing 747. Because, after all, an eye either works as a fully complete and complex thing, or it doesn't work at all.

Except you are absolutely ignoring the fact that an eye isn't formed like that through evolution. It is all incremental and only those incremental changes that did not hinder the ability of a creature to survive long enough to procreate, or those that actually ended up raising the chances of a creature surviving long enough to procreate, would be passed down and form part of the blueprint for the offspring, whereby further mutation would result in additional tiny changes and so on.

It's about mutation, not purposeful design, error.

Your inability to comprehend relatively straightforward concepts and to actively seek out others who will also refuse to comprehend these things in order to replace reasonable explanation with myth and 'woo', because it suits you, does not change the truth that the most rational and reasonable explanations are perfectly capable of describing the process.

[bl4kjaguar]

You have just asserted something you have no business asserting because it is based solely on your lack of intelligence/education.

Add, then, the untold actions and interactions of temperatures and pressures and forces and elements that combine over this time to create the building blocks of biological life.

It didn't need to go from zero-to-superhero, it need only be an incremental series of advances. Which is exactly what is observed and understood about the process.

Sir, since you apparently have enough intelligence to understand the incremental advances leading up to DNA-based life, then surely you are able to point out (and explain) the incremental steps which have been observed between the following:

1) getting only homochiral monomers,
2) only peptide bonds (half the bonds that normally form between amino acids),
3) only biologically usable amino acids (20 out of well over 80 that were probably common in a prebiotic environment),
4) getting activated monomers that can polymerize,
5) getting a family member of each protein catalyst out of sequence space,
6) getting all needed components produced and assembled at the same place and in the correct reaction order through time, etc.

Then your understandings should also account for the observation that the overall prevalence of polyamino acid sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold is only one in 10^77.

I am sure that once you clarify the observations and understandings which bring life to this stage of the "zero to superhero" process, then you will be well on your way to claiming the $1,000,000 Origin of Life Prize.

As you can see, the origin of life is not an easy question, but at least you can begin to ask the right questions and educate yourself about the state of the understanding in this field; I highly recommend the Origin of Life Prize website.

If you ask me, an incremental series of advances culminating in DNA-life seems quite extraordinary from the materialist perspective.

[Rassah]

^^^ Since we currently don't have the science and technology to understand this process, or even know if that was the correct process, the ONLY correct answer is:

6,000 years ago, some bearded dude got bored, created a garden, then created another dude, who also got bored, so the original dude took out that second dude's rib and made a dudette for him to play with. That is obviously a much better explanation with much more evidence, and thus we shouldn't even bother trying to figure any other reasons out. God did it should be good enough, and no more scientific progress is necessary.

Personally, I prefer the "We don't know" answer to the "voices in my head told me some guy did it, and I'm going to believe them with no evidence, or will start to selectively search for the evidence that proves I'm not crazy."

[RodeoX]

If God designed us, why did he do such a shitty job? There are all sorts of ways to improve our bodies and all sorts of parts that are far inferior to our human technology.

[the joint]

Regardless of whether God exists, I think it's at least reasonably easy to demonstrate the Universe is predicated upon the abstract, i.e. upon mentality.  For, to even assert the Universe, or any event contained therein, exists requires a metric to measure, i.e. identity, its existence.  Observation alone invokes such a metric.

No mind --> no Universe.  Empiricists tend to struggle with this concept, and this is evidenced by their tendency to describe the Universe as if all observers could be removed from it.  Yet, they fail to realize that a Universe without observers can't be a Universe at all, for there is no metric by which the Universe can be stated to exist.

"But...but...there would still be something!"   Actually, no, you don't have the authority to say anything about such a Universe at all.

[bl4kjaguar]

the ONLY correct answer is:

Any answer that satisfies the Origin of Life Prize.

I fixed that for you.

[BADecker]

If God designed us, why did he do such a shitty job? There are all sorts of ways to improve our bodies and all sorts of parts that are far inferior to our human technology.

God designed us well. He designed us with "God qualities." When we decided to follow the advice of the devil and destroy ourselves, our God-qualities allowed us to do it, at the same time they didn't allow us to do it.

[Vod]

God designed us well. He designed us with "God qualities." When we decided to follow the advice of the devil and destroy ourselves, our God-qualities allowed us to do it, at the same time they didn't allow us to do it.

The FSM (what you call "God") didn't actually design us.   He was present as we evolved but he gives free will to all living creatures.  He didn't force a fish to walk on land, for example - he waited until the fish wanted to.

 

[cryptodevil]

If you ask me, an incremental series of advances culminating in DNA-life seems quite extraordinary from the materialist perspective.

Let's weigh up the two side of the argument then:

1 - Any explanation that utilises temperatures, pressures and forces that are part of our Universe

2 - An explanation that invokes the paranormal and is centred around an omnipotent super-being who functions outside the laws of nature


Hmmmm, tough one. Do we consider your inability to comprehend the rational explanation as justification for you to cling on to your conditioned-response that binds your thoughts within a cage designed to fear rational explanation, or do we just roll our eyes and sigh about the epic lengths theists will go to in order to maintain their intellectually dishonest magic-man belief?

[Vortex20000]

If you ask me, an incremental series of advances culminating in DNA-life seems quite extraordinary from the materialist perspective.

Let's weigh up the two side of the argument then:

1 - Any explanation that utilises temperatures, pressures and forces that are part of our Universe

2 - An explanation that invokes the paranormal and is centred around an omnipotent super-being who functions outside the laws of nature


Hmmmm, tough one. Do we consider your inability to comprehend the rational explanation as justification for you to cling on to your conditioned-response that binds your thoughts within a cage designed to fear rational explanation, or do we just roll our eyes and sigh about the epic lengths theists will go to in order to maintain their intellectually dishonest magic-man belief?

So you believe in abiogenesis?

[cryptodevil]

I accept that explanations involving forces and elements which actually exist in this reality are at least rational, even if they are incorrect.

[bl4kjaguar]

I accept that explanations involving forces and elements which actually exist in this [meaning physical] reality are at least rational, even if they are incorrect.

I suggest that if you believe in something which is incorrect (disproven) then you should try to remedy that situation. To do otherwise is to behave irrationally.

I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.

[bl4kjaguar]

your inability to comprehend the rational explanation as justification for you to cling

Pardon? I have not heard ANY explanation regarding this "incremental series of advances", which you allege to be "exactly what is observed and understood about the process". I am not inclined to take your "explanation" on faith, no matter how "rational", with the primary reason being that so far you have not proposed any explanation whatsoever.

So please tell me this explanation that I am not able to comprehend, but be sure that it accounts for the facts which have been "observed", I will mention them again:

1) getting only homochiral monomers,
2) only peptide bonds (half the bonds that normally form between amino acids),
3) only biologically usable amino acids (20 out of well over 80 that were probably common in a prebiotic environment),
4) getting activated monomers that can polymerize,
5) getting a family member of each protein catalyst out of sequence space,
6) getting all needed components produced and assembled at the same place and in the correct reaction order through time, etc.

Then your understandings should also account for the observation that the overall prevalence of polyamino acid sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold is only one in 10^77.

[awesome31312]

Don't misunderstand my statement guys. I said human DNA because I was trying to discuss whether it can be considered as an "extraordinary claim"

[cryptodevil]

What do you mean human DNA is an 'extraordinary claim'? You don't think it exists?

As for your continuously dishonest crap jaguar, don't think nobody notices. My role in this debate is not to have to walk your through every scientific theory, my role is to point out that at least every scientific theory is based in reality, whether it be correct or not.

As has been pointed out, you don't get to go, "Science hasn't got a definite answer yet? Right, time to invoke my invisible super-deity-being"

You are not just intellectually dishonest, jaguar, you lack intellectual integrity too. The practice of answering a question with another question in order to avoid answering the first question is typical of the lack of honesty displayed by rabid theists in these discussions.

[Fabrizio89]

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan.

I think the claim towards the existence of an all-powerful super-being qualifies as extraordinary.

What about human DNA?

YES!

The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U -  is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.

Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.

If nature put this life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.

I think you should really study the matter in details and with a serious attitude, before you say that it happened "by accident" and once you get the basics you will see that dna is not perfect at all, the results from what you suggest was made from a divinity is even worse.

[bl4kjaguar]

My role in this debate is not to have to walk your through every scientific theory, my role is to point out that at least every scientific theory is based in reality, whether it be correct or not.

Your role in any debate is to back up the claims that you have made or admit that you cannot. This following claim seems sensible when talking about macroevolution, but not so with abiogenesis:

an incremental series of advances. Which is exactly what is observed and understood about the process.

The process is not understood, these alleged intermediates are unobserved, so they do not have a basis in reality, else they would fit with those seven observations and facts, which I will mention again:

1) getting only homochiral monomers,
2) only peptide bonds (half the bonds that normally form between amino acids),
3) only biologically usable amino acids (20 out of well over 80 that were probably common in a prebiotic environment),
4) getting activated monomers that can polymerize,
5) getting a family member of each protein catalyst out of sequence space,
6) getting all needed components produced and assembled at the same place and in the correct reaction order through time, etc.

Then your understandings should also account for the observation that the overall prevalence of polyamino acid sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold is only one in 10^77.

I conclude that simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. How can you conclude the opposite without providing processes, observations, and statistics to counter these astounding numbers?