Can science disprove God?

[jstucker15]

Science has been proving the oposite:

Life proves there is a creator. For life to come from non-life is impossible.

Scientist use the think that cells were formed when amino acids in some pond assembled themselves into a cell. Now they know better.
When we look at how proteins are constructed, the chances of getting an average viable protein 150 amino acids long by chance is next to impossible. The order of amino acids has to be correct so the chain can be rolled up into a 3 dimensional protein. If the amino acids are out of order then connections can not be made during roll up and the amino chain will be is destroyed.

But if by chance we got very lucky, you only have one protein. The simplest cell needs over 600 proteins. And the cell needs to be able to replicate itself before we can even talk about evolution.

The cell creates all the proteins it needs from instructions buried in the DNA. To manufacture these proteins the cell uses molecular machines which are themselves made from proteins (chicken and egg problem). There are molecular machines that unrival the DNA at certain points so other molecular machine can read it producing RNA. Then another molecular machine transports the RNA to the outside of the nucleus to another molecular machine that generates the amino acid chain from the RNA. Then another molecular machine transports it to a molecular machine that rolls it up into a 3 dimensional protein and then another molecular machine transports the protein to where it is needed.

The problem should become clear. Where did these molecular machines come from when the chances of amino acids assembling themselves into proteins are almost non existent. And how do these machines know how to work together to keep the cell alive. Without DNA the cell can not manufacture proteins and without proteins the DNA is useless.

Where did the DNA come from? The DNA is an extremely large digital program that is compacted into the nucleus of a cell. This does not even come close to what man has accomplished so far. If you found a large digital program on earth that was so miniaturized as this, wouldn’t you think we are not alone?

What’s the Minimum DNA Amount for Life?
A team of researchers wanted to know. They did this by tinkering with a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium, which is the simplest known organism. Its genetic code is about 580,000 letters long and spells out 480 protein producing genes plus 37 kinds of RNA. After the researchers knocked out various protein coding genes they got the estimated genes down to 265 to 350 that are essential for life under laboratory conditions - an extremely favorable environment that would not be found on the early earth.

What is the size of a gene? Bacteria has 1,000 base pairs for each gene. What are the chances of getting 480 genes each 1,000 base pairs long (actually more than this 580,000 / 480) in the correct order?
What are the chances of getting these genes in a structure along with the various molecular machines to get at the genes?

DNA is an extremely information rich system that can not be explained by chance.

The living cell is irreducibly complex on every level. All the parts have to be in place to have a replicating cell. It can not be build little by little until Mount Improbable is reached.

SETI is looking for intelligent life in the universe by searching for signals that are polarized or with coded information. By this criterion they infer intelligence. Complexity and high improbability.
We can infer an intelligent designer of life by the extreme complexity and impossibility.
There is no doubt God exists.

[Der_Trihs]

@jstucker15

If your a true believer in evolution then you would have to admit that religious people are the product of millions of years of evolution and they are the fittest. Non religious people must be the weak.

That’s not how evolution works. Failing in Darwinian terms doesn’t make you “weak”; the weak can be more fit than the strong in Darwinian terms.

And religion hasn’t existed for millions of years in the first place, since creatures intelligent enough to be wrong in that particular fashion haven’t existed that long.

@jstucker15

All the ancient peoples believed in one or more gods. Why did evolution favor religious people? What advantage did being religious give them over the non religious weak?

Systematic murder comes to mind. Thousands of years of believers killing anyone who didn’t make a show of how religious they are. We’re more likely looking at an example of selective breeding, not evolution; humans have bred themselves to be religious by killing anyone whom they thought to be insufficiently pious for thousands of years. A self-inflicted crippling of humanity.

[cornopean]

@Der_Trihs

Yes it’s irrational; claiming that gods exist and making claims about what they want is irrational. That’s why it’s called faith. Nor is “God” as normally portrayed remotely moral, nor do such claims match reality, nor is there any evidence for those claims whatsoever. And claims about the various gods* nature and powers go against pretty much every scientific discovery there is; that’s about as close to disproving something as science ever comes.

do you believe that faith is, by defn, irrational? do you have faith in the laws of logic? do you believe the laws of logic are true? are you able to demonstrate that they are true empirically?

*And of course you are still talking like the Christian god is the only possible one.

well the three major religions have roughly the same concept of a God.

Nonsense; scientists who study the brain see it all the time.

scientists have observed mind developing out of matter??! where?

It’s plenty of help. Telling us the consequences lets us judge what is good or bad instead of making a wild guess.

ok…so let’s suppose a given action will result in the death of 15 children. Is that a bad consequence or a good consequence? (and please base your answer on science)

And religion is utterly worthless on this matter, so your complaints about science are useless. Religion corrupts people morally, it doesn’t improve them; it distorts their judgement massively, and has no basis for any moral claims it makes. Claiming that science is useless doesn’t make religion useful; religion is worthless regardless of what science can or can’t contribute.

Well this is your opinion, and it isn’t very scientific. Lots of people claim that religion has greatly improved their life. The worst moral monsters in history were committed atheists. It was people who believe in God who ended slavery. All the great scientists were theists; first in Islamic societies, then in Christian society. It was people who believe in God who hid the Jews in WW2. etc. etc.

and the basis of the moral claims that Christians make is the character of the God they believe in. Again, you may not like it, but there is nothing irrational about it. in fact, your passion against theism is actually quite…religious. Scientists typically don’t display this kind of zeal and passion.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@jstucker15

There is no doubt God exists.

You convince yourself so convincingly.

[FinnAgain]

@cornopean

I agree there is some mysterious kind of connection between body and soul. but it is very unscientific to believe that mind comes from matter. no scientist has ever observed this in a laboratory or anywhere.

Oh, and, also wrong.

BBC NEWS | Health | Brain scan 'sees hidden thoughts'

HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News

Neuroscientist Uses Brain Scan to See Lies Form

You’re welcome.

[Der_Trihs]

@jstucker15

Science has been proving the oposite:

Life proves there is a creator. For life to come from non-life is impossible.

Wrong.

@jstucker15

Scientist use the think that cells were formed when amino acids in some pond assembled themselves into a cell. Now they know better.

No, they never thought that.

@jstucker15

<snips nonsense>
Where did the DNA come from?

Earlier, pre-DNA life. You are using the old creationist rhetorical trick of totally mischaracterizing how both the emergence or life and evolution are believed to work. And no, they aren’t the same thing, either. Scientists do not claim that complex proteins and DNA suddenly assembled themselves randomly.

@jstucker15

There is no doubt God exists.

Nonsense; God is as impossible and implausible as anything gets. Pure wish fulfillment.

[jstucker15]

@FinnAgain

So, in other words, you have no idea what evolutionary biology actually says.
No, religious memes have showed increased fitness relative to other memes due to factors that can be debated, but the prevelance of memes does not speak to the fitness of genes.

You do realize that as there were no atheistic societies, that there were no selection pressures which could have acted on that kind of a homogeneous population group?

Then why are there selection pressures now? Doesn’t it take millions of years? Did evolution completely eradicate the weak until now?

[FinnAgain]

@jstucker15

Life proves there is a creator. For life to come from non-life is impossible.

“Things exist… therefore God.”
My, how probative. And scientific!

Of course, we have very, very good ideas at how abiogenesis might occur. And we’re learning more every day.

@jstucker15

When we look at how proteins are constructed, the chances of getting an average viable protein 150 amino acids long by chance is next to impossible.

Wrong.

Chemist Shows How RNA Can Be the Starting Point for Life (Published 2009)

@jstucker15

The simplest cell needs over 600 proteins. And the cell needs to be able to replicate itself before we can even talk about evolution.

Proteinacious microspheres.

@jstucker15

Where did these molecular machines come from when the chances of amino acids assembling themselves into proteins are almost non existent.

Fallacy of Appeal to Incredulity. (Also you’re wrong about the probability, anyways). The chances of getting a dozen Straight Flushes in poker is astonishingly rare. But claiming that it didn’t happen after you see someone draw those twelve hands is hardly rational.

@jstucker15

And how do these machines know how to work together to keep the cell alive.

… seriously?
How does a puddle ‘know’ to fit the exact shape of the depression it’s in? It must be magic!
Oh, wait, no. If replicators weren’t stable in terms of lineage, they would have been selected against.

@jstucker15

DNA is an extremely information rich system that can not be explained by chance.

Can, and is explained by chance plus selection pressures. Try again.

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries

@jstucker15

The living cell is irreducibly complex on every level.

Except the level of reality.
Pesky reality, always gettin’ in the way.

@jstucker15

There is no doubt God exists.

Of course. Obviously the universe was created when Atom jacked off. Right? That is what you meant, right? No? You mean that all this ‘evidence’ points to the specific God you believe in, out of the thousands of Gods which have existed through human history. How lucky! And convenient.

[FinnAgain]

@jstucker15

Then why are there selection pressures now?

Do you have any idea what “selection pressure” means? It certainly doesn’t seem like you do.

@jstucker15

Did evolution completely eradicate the weak until now?

I’ll also note that it was just your babbling bluster whereby you alleged that a-theists are “weak”. You also seem not to understand that evolution works on the population, not the individual level.

[Der_Trihs]

@cornopean

do you believe that faith is, by defn, irrational?

Yes. It is the denial of rationality.

@cornopean

do you have faith in the laws of logic?

No, because they work. It’s impossible to have faith in logic because it works; faith requires that what you believe be false, or at least baseless.

@cornopean

do you believe the laws of logic are true? are you able to demonstrate that they are true empirically?

Of course; the simple fact that I’m using this computer is such a demonstration, since it uses logic to function.

@cornopean

scientists have observed mind developing out of matter??! where?

Studies of the brain, of course.

@cornopean

ok…so let’s suppose a given action will result in the death of 15 children. Is that a bad consequence or a good consequence? (and please base your answer on science)

No; science would be able to tell us that an action will kill those children, or not. A religion would tell its followers to do something that kills those children, while having faith that it won’t.

@cornopean

Lots of people claim that religion has greatly improved their life.

And they’d do that no matter how horribly religion screwed up their life, because religion demands that they do so to help promote it.

@cornopean

The worst moral monsters in history were committed atheists. It was people who believe in God who ended slavery. All the great scientists were theists; first in Islamic societies, then in Christian society.

Nonsense. There’s been plenty of religious monsters, and great scientists tend to be atheists. And it was religious people who promoted slavery as well and who did it first, largely in the name of their religion. It worked too; they created millions of new Christian believers by slavery.

@cornopean

and the basis of the moral claims that Christians make is the character of the God they believe in.

And that God is a monster. That’s a condemnation of Christians, not something in their favor.

[jstucker15]

@FinnAgain

Do you have any idea what “selection pressure” means? It certainly doesn’t seem like you do.

I’ll also note that it was just your babbling bluster whereby you alleged that a-theists are “weak”. You also seem not to understand that evolution works on the population, not the individual level.

I don’t understand population vs individual. Throughout history was evolution working on the population or individual level when religious people were the fittest and non religious were practically non-existent?

[FinnAgain]

@jstucker15

I don’t understand population vs individual.

Shockah!

@jstucker15

Throughout history was evolution working on the population or individual level when religious people were the fittest and non religious were practically non-existent?

Did you perhaps miss the part where I pointed out that your claim about the ‘fitness’ and ‘weakness’ of theists and a-theists is “babbling bluster”? You’re asking me to justify why the thing you claim that isn’t true… is true?

For serious?

[jstucker15]

@jstucker15

I don’t understand population vs individual. Throughout history was evolution working on the population or individual level when religious people were the fittest and non religious were practically non-existent?

There was selection pressure in ancient history. They had to choose which gods they believed in and whose god they didn’t believe in.

[jstucker15]

@FinnAgain

Shockah!

Did you perhaps miss the part where I pointed out that your claim about the ‘fitness’ and ‘weakness’ of theists and a-theists is “babbling bluster”? You’re asking me to justify why the thing you claim that isn’t true… is true?

For serious?

I was just using evolution theory and observation, not babbling bluster.

[Der_Trihs]

@jstucker15

There was selection pressure in ancient history. They had to choose which gods they believed in and whose god they didn’t believe in.

That’s selection pressure applied to particular religions, and can explain why one particular religion flourished and another didn’t. That doesn’t have a thing to do with genetic fitness or Darwinian evolution, however. That’s cultural change, not genetic change.

[FinnAgain]

@jstucker15

There was selection pressure in ancient history. They had to choose which gods they believed in and whose god they didn’t believe in.

Your first claim was that theists, in toto, were more fit.
Now you’re claiming that only some theists were.
And, of course, a belief can have associated selection pressures even if it isn’t true. If I believe that working out and eating right will cause Jeri Ryan to fall madly in love with me, I’m wrong. But it’ll still increase my personal health and fitness. (As distinct from “fitness” in an evolutionary sense.)

You are still wrong. Now you’re just trying to shift the goalposts.

[jstucker15]

@Der_Trihs

That’s selection pressure applied to particular religions, and can explain why one particular religion flourished and another didn’t. That doesn’t have a thing to do with genetic fitness or Darwinian evolution, however. That’s cultural change, not genetic change.

Then why did all the peoples throughout the world become religious. It doesn’t seem to be cultural. I seems to be genetic. Why would evolution put into man the desire to worship a god they have not seen?

[jstucker15]

Why would evolution favor the religious and reject the non religious?

[Der_Trihs]

@FinnAgain

Your first claim was that theists, in toto, were more fit.

Not just more fit; more* strong.* That’s not even close to the same thing as “fit”.

[FinnAgain]

@jstucker15

I was just using evolution theory and observation

No, you weren’t. You are using a traditional Creationist tactic of only caring to learn a caricatured version of evolutionary biology and then using a God of the Gaps fallacy dovetailed with a Bifurcation fallacy to try to poke holes in evolution and present your God as the only alternative. You also displayed a complete lack of comprehension about what “fitness” means in an evolutionary context and simply wanted to claim that theists are more “fit” because you wanted to claim that a-theists are “weak”.

In other words:

@jstucker15

babbling bluster.