"Proof of God", supposedly

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-15 04:35pm

There is the really annoying person on a board who likes to treat evolution as a religion, and makes the standard claims about the fallibility of evolution, but he's a lot more thorough and cites more mainstream materials. He's been claiming that there is scientific evidence of god, and after goading him for long enough, he finally linked to this massive article.

The Link

Frankly, I can't make heads or tails of it, because it refers to quite a few things that I'm not familiar with at all. I was hoping some of you more educated folks could look at it and point out why it's flawed. I consider this to be more than a "do my work for me" post, because this person has been the hardest creationist I've ever had to debate, and I've never seen anything so complex as a proof, so this should be interesting for those of you who want to keep tabs on creationists proofs.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-04-15 04:44pm

I didn't read the whole thing, but I noticed a few glaring errors and misrepresentations. At one point, they state that the entropy of a system is a fixed value depending on the number of possible configurations of the system, with no other independent variables. This is pure bullshit; the way they've described the system, it is impossible to raise the entropy of a bucket of water. Also, they state triumphantly that you must "climb uphill" against energy to polymerize organic compounds, as if there is no source of energy existent in primordial Earth (hint: sun, lightning, etc).

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-04-15 04:46pm

one of the more notable badly arranged analogies is the comparison between dna sequences and words. supposedly it's sounding like because only one correct combination can relay useful information, and words are created by man, thus the chemical arrangements are created by some higher being due to there being only one correct way that they can be arranged to transmit useful information. effectively a false cause fallacy.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-04-15 04:48pm

At first blush, it looks like the typical "Life violates thermodynamics, so it can't have come about naturally so . . . GOD did it" argument.

And the usual "The formation of life is a 10,000 meter leap from primordial soup to functioning cells which is impossible so . . . GOD did it" argument.

The author beats feverishly to the first argument for a while.

In there, there's another broad 10,000 meter leap from goop to DNA argument . . . which does the usual bang-up job of ignoring the fact that there are simpler self-replicators out there. There's also the usual 10,000 meter leap from amino acids to complex protein argument (the ID/Creationist tactic of starting at point A, ignoring points B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, and Y asking how did we get to point Z, and promptly concluding it's impossible in nature, so ::gaaasp:: GOD did it! OMG LMFAOWTF!!!!111!!shift+one-hundred-and-eleven)

. . .

Really, the question to ask is "why does this article only focus on the formation of DNA and complex proteins, while ignoring simpler proteins, and simpler, self-replicating molecules that can still convey meaningful information?"

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-15 05:56pm

Someone posted this in a related thread. RNA can reproduce without outside assistance or special enzymes. The creationist's response has to be seen to be believed.

Well the fairy tale opens another chapter. Or at least it gets an extension on the grant to write it. The fact remains that specified complexity has not occured in nature. And the RNA yield is yet to be determined. Good luck.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2005-04-15 06:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:I didn't read the whole thing, but I noticed a few glaring errors and misrepresentations. At one point, they state that the entropy of a system is a fixed value depending on the number of possible configurations of the system, with no other independent variables. This is pure bullshit; the way they've described the system, it is impossible to raise the entropy of a bucket of water. Also, they state triumphantly that you must "climb uphill" against energy to polymerize organic compounds, as if there is no source of energy existent in primordial Earth (hint: sun, lightning, etc).

Where exactly did they say these things?