Show me your proof of Gods inexistence and I'll glady give up my foolishness.
This is an idiotic attempt at an argument. Idi freaking otic.
There are many problems with it, but the obvious one is that you assume there's one and only one possible protein sequence. There's always more than one possible. Besides that, the theory of evolution does not postulate that 300 amino acid sequences were assembled from scratch. So it's also a straw man.
I've seen a similar idiotic argument, but in regard to the human genomic sequence, saying the odds of us having this particular sequence is 1/ 3x10^9, the size of the genome. Therefore it couldn't have happened, unless goddidit. You can use similar 'logic' to calculate that you don't exist.
In what way would that show intelligent design is false? Why couldn't the alleged "designer" have designed a continuously functional pathway?
An intelligent designer could have done anything he wanted, I suppose.
In what way would a failure to describe such a system demonstrate intelligent design? All you have is an argument from incredulity -- you're basically saying "We don't know how it could have arisen, therefore intelligent design." Do you really fail to understand why that isn't a sound argument?
As a trained scientist, I look at evidence, and to me the evidence suggests an intelligent designer.
Isn't it your belief that your alleged "designer" did not merely design biological organisms, but designed literally every aspect of our functioning universe, from planetary orbits to the hydrological cycle? If everything in the universe is designed, then how would you know what an "undesigned" phenomenon looked like?
I don't understand the question.
What does it postulate?
for the 50th time:
ToE /= Origin of life.
It doesn't really baffle me that you so easily confuse these concepts, but it further shows that your understanding of science is pretty much dick.
A typical protein contains about about 300 amino acids. The probability of building a 150-amino-acid-length chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form (functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids) is roughly 1 chance in 10^180.
To put this in perspective, the chance of winning the Mega Millions lottery is about 10^8.
And 10^180 is just for one simple protein. A complete bacterium is composed of hundreds or thousands of enzymes & proteins.
Creationism is nothing but one big assumption.I provided the link becuase I though it was interesting. I wasn't trying to prove any points.
I thought that this was perticularly interesting:
"At the conclusion of a long essay, it is customary to summarize what has been learned. In the present case, I suspect it would be more prudent to recall how much has been assumed:
First, that the pre-biotic atmosphere was chemically reductive; second, that nature found a way to synthesize cytosine; third, that nature also found a way to synthesize ribose; fourth, that nature found the means to assemble nucleotides into polynucleotides; fifth, that nature discovered a self-replicating molecule; and sixth, that having done all that, nature promoted a self-replicating molecule into a full system of coded chemistry."
Is making so many assumptions good science?
Plus, keep in mind that DNA can only work in the cell, and a cell is made by the directions in the DNA. It all had to come about by chance all at the same time.
Creationism is nothing but one big assumption.
Also, your info is outdated and rather slanted, to the least. Quit quoting Discovery Institute, they're liars.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204914
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18927386
Remember that one doesn't multiply entities unnecessarily.
You make a massive assumption that only naturalistic causes are relevent. That's unfortunate since ID provides a much model for the evidence.
Show me your proof of Gods inexistence and I'll glady give up my foolishness.
And yet it's the same DNA that tells your RNA messenger proteins to produce retinal cells in your eyes as it is telling your nail cells to produce nails exactly the same DNA chains but in your world nails and eyes are the exact same thing?
I touched on this earlier, epigenetics, you really need to read up on it if you want to debate this.
You don't even make sense. There IS no proof that god exists. Why would I have some, you fucking nitwit?
You misread what I wrote.
Show me your proof of Gods inexistence and I'll glady give up my foolishness.
You don't even make sense. There IS no proof that god exists. Why would I have some, you fucking nitwit?
He's asking you to prove that a nonexistant entity does not exist.
You can do that as easily as you can prove that the celestial teapot orbiting the eath doesn't exist... that is... you can't.
Now tell the fucking twat that that is what unfalsifiable means and give him my regards because i'm off to fuck up some of his kindred spirits in Afghanistan.
Cheers Nik.
To even begin to provide evidence for it you'll need to provide evidence that there IS a designer, that is the basic needed evidence, to just discount evidence to the contrary isn't evidence at all, it's just retarded.
Please explain how epigentics disproves intelligent design.
Actually, it's a big problem for Darwinism.
Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/19/evolution-darwin-natural-selection-genes-wrong
He's asking you to prove that a nonexistant entity does not exist.
Oh christ... you really need to learn about cellular memory, acetylation and methylisation and how epigenetics actually work, this quoted piece actually proves evolution.
You just don't get it because you are being willfully ignorant.
So then answer the first question, dumb shit. If an intelligent designer could have done literally anything, then how can you falsify intelligent design? There are no conceivable observations which are inconsistent with it.In what way would that show intelligent design is false? Why couldn't the alleged "designer" have designed a continuously functional pathway?
An intelligent designer could have done anything he wanted, I suppose.
In what way would a failure to describe such a system demonstrate intelligent design? All you have is an argument from incredulity -- you're basically saying "We don't know how it could have arisen, therefore intelligent design." Do you really fail to understand why that isn't a sound argument?
I asked you to supply that evidence, and so far that request has been unanswered.As a trained scientist, I look at evidence, and to me the evidence suggests an intelligent designer.
Isn't it your belief that your alleged "designer" did not merely design biological organisms, but designed literally every aspect of our functioning universe, from planetary orbits to the hydrological cycle? If everything in the universe is designed, then how would you know what an "undesigned" phenomenon looked like?
I'm sure you don't. You're a fucking moron. Just answer this question:I don't understand the question.
The ironing. It's delicious.Really, so your idea of science is to determine a model a priori and then fit the data to it?
What the fuck would you know about it, jackass? The theory of evolution actually makes predictions which are confirmed by observation. It's the lame-ass creationist just-so stories that have to deny the reality of our observations in order to maintain their preposterous lies.That's backwards.
He's asking you to prove that a nonexistant entity does not exist.
You can do that as easily as you can prove that the celestial teapot orbiting the eath doesn't exist... that is... you can't.
Now tell the fucking twat that that is what unfalsifiable means and give him my regards because i'm off to fuck up some of his kindred spirits in Afghanistan.
Cheers Nik.
So then answer the first question, dumb shit. If an intelligent designer could have done literally anything, then how can you falsify intelligent design? There are no conceivable observations which are inconsistent with it.
Your claim that intelligent design is falsifiable is therefore proven wrong.
I asked you to supply that evidence, and so far that request has been unanswered.
I'm sure you don't. You're a fucking moron. Just answer this question:
Isn't it your belief that the alleged "designer" designed the entire universe, not just biological organisms?