The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-12-2012, 04:43 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
*Having trudged through the first couple of pages*

Eh, these might be effective points to level at an apologist like WLC. (Actually, I take that back. If this person's like WLC, NO argument would have an effect.) But I don't see it as useful against everyday Christians, because it's too damned abstract, complicated, and rarified. Most people will zone out when you start talking about a universal set of all sets, and then decide, when you conclude that their world view is utterly wrong, that what ACTUALLY happened was a bit of logical sleight of hand mixed in with all the mumbo-jumbo that they couldn't follow. (Honestly, I do this to a lot of apologists too, the first time I hear their arguments, and only go back and try to sort things out after the fact.) I'd guess you'd lose most of them around when you get into the universal set of all sets -- this is where they zone out and figure the trickery's going to happen while they're trying to decide what the hell that means.

(As an aside, they're RIGHT to be worried about arguments including the set of all sets. The set of all sets does appear in the naive set theory, but that theory collapsed under the weight of its own paradoxes about a century ago. Several axiomatic set theories took its place, most popularly ZF or ZFC. The set of all sets is capable of containing itself, and this sort of recursion is forbidden under the more restrictive ZF© axioms, for the very reason that so MANY sets of that sort create paradoxes. Though recursion in naive set theory doesn't AUTOMATICALLY produce paradoxes, it's still a red flag that one should regard the proof in question with extreme suspicion.)

For MOST Christians, God isn't fundamentally the creator or perfection made manifest or the watchmaker or any such. Not at all. For your everyday Christian (and this'll vary by denomination) God is the invisible sky-buddy, the fellow who lends out a helping hand if you ask, the source of comfort and strength and protection... and sometimes judgement and/or forgiveness, especially if you're feeling guilty or ashamed about something. THAT'S God to most Christians, and things like "creator" and "perfect" and "omnipotent" might get grafted on as interesting and important factoids about the sky-buddy, but aren't really part of the core concept. Attack those properties all you want, it will do nothing to the core concept.

I'd even go a step further. It's sort of a strawman argument, like many atheist arguments. (Not that atheists have anywhere near a monopoly on the strawman.) We take the core concept of God for most Christians, which is vague and amorphous and ill-defined and more intuitive than intellectual. We then replace it with an abstract, rarified, well-defined version, which (because it's well defined) is easier to knock down. This is the strawman which we then knock it down. Then we scratch our heads about how the Christians can still be worshiping this thing we've disproven -- when what we've disproven isn't actually what they were worshiping in the first place.

In short, an argument against a Christian's God must be directed towards what they actually believe and worship in order to be effective. Weird constructions about pantheistic existence, universal sets, etc? That isn't aimed in the right direction.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-12-2012, 02:12 AM (This post was last modified: 14-12-2012 02:25 AM by TheJackal.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote:(As an aside, they're RIGHT to be worried about arguments including the
set of all sets. The set of all sets does appear in the naive set
theory, but that theory collapsed under the weight of its own paradoxes
about a century ago. Several axiomatic set theories took its place, most
popularly ZF or ZFC. The set of all sets is capable of containing
itself, and this sort of recursion is forbidden under the more
restrictive ZF axioms, for the very reason that so MANY sets of that
sort create paradoxes. Though recursion in naive set theory doesn't
AUTOMATICALLY produce paradoxes, it's still a red flag that one should
regard the proof in question with extreme suspicion.)
Granted set theory gets complicated and most Christians would zone out, however, the above problem with set theory is avoided when the container itself is infinite.. Hence it avoids the problem entirely.. So its as simple as understanding that nothing, or a literal zero value can't actually literally exist, and we can carry that understanding over to volume and the capacity of to which would mean that no literal zero value can exist for volume.. Hence that means the system would be infinite by consequence of the impossible to exist value. Existence would thus be applicable to being a Universal Set of all sets.. Anything in and of existence would then be a subset of existence.. There is then arguably no paradox here in which collapses under its own weight.


Quote:For MOST Christians, God isn't fundamentally the creator or perfection
made manifest or the watchmaker or any such. Not at all. For your
everyday Christian (and this'll vary by denomination) God is the
invisible sky-buddy, the fellow who lends out a helping hand if you ask,
the source of comfort and strength and protection... and sometimes
judgement and/or forgiveness, especially if you're feeling guilty or
ashamed about something. THAT'S God to most Christians, and things like
"creator" and "perfect" and "omnipotent" might get grafted on as
interesting and important factoids about the sky-buddy, but aren't
really part of the core concept. Attack those properties all you want,
it will do nothing to the core concept.
I would have to disagree from being a Christian once myself.. Yes some of those are core issues, but it's much more in depth than that. Most of them don't even know what they are actually worshiping since most don't actually do any real research on their religion or actually critically read their bibles. And none of that would actually take away from the OP's premises.

What is GOD without existence is a pretty hard question to tackle, and it doesn't matter which definition one may choose to use as they are all applicable. All the OP shows is that the concept of GOD is technically moot..That doesn't stop people from worshiping something as a GOD, but it shows them a very valid reason why others do not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 09:24 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(21-10-2012 12:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  As we know, there are many concepts of GOD to which include the Christian's idea of a GOD that supposedly created "everything", or as some how the source origin to all that exists. And then there are other examples such as the Pantheist GOD to which comes in a form, one of many, to which I will reference here. Hence some Pantheists see existence itself as the source origin, and as the Universal set of all sets to everything that is in and of existence. Hence existence itself being the very entity from which all things derive from. So in their context, Existence is the totality of all that exists as well as causality itself. Hence Existence is Causality and Reality itself as every force to cause, source origin of all there is, and every person, place, object, substance, or thing in and of existence. Under this context, existence is seen as a self-generating system capable of generating universes, stars, galaxies, planets, life, and conscious beings such as ourselves. It's an amazing thing, and almost supernatural as some might say! But it is not supernatural, It is the natural answer to the deepest questions of all.. Why are we here?, and where did we come from? And that answer has been starring humanity, us, in the face as it is everything around us, as well as in us, and literally as us.. "I am" in and of existence, and so are you.

It's simple to understand since Existence is stated here as Causality just as it is Reality itself. And Existence simply exists without creation due to the likely fact that non-existence can not ever actually and literally exist as an existing person, place, object, substance, or thing. Thus existence solves infinite regress, and represents a Universal set of all sets even if we don't, in science or philosophy, fully understand every aspect of it and how it works. And we all know how Christians love simplicity since it's hard to think.. So the answer to all things is simple:

Existence!

So this leads us to two questions that Christians will have a very hard time answering without self-refuting their position, or pandering to require the Pantheist GOD to which is that of existence itself. And these two questions are interconnected or in conjunction with each other to express why the concept of GOD is moot. So what are these two simple questions that utterly collapse the concept of GOD? Well, lets find out shall we?:

Here I present my two questions:
Quote:What is GOD without existence?
And if Existence is not GOD, what of existence are we to consider as GOD?

Getting a Christian to answer the first question is rather amusing, but getting them to answer the second one in relation to the first one is even more amusing.. Especially when consciousness can't exist without cause, or that no sentient / conscious entity can create that which themselves are slave to require in order to function or exist at all.. Hence, no conscious entity could ever solve infinite regress, or represent a Universal set of all sets. This means that no being with a conscious mind could ever represent to origins to existence since the only thing that can do that, and represent that, is Existence itself. Thus all things including conscious beings are emergent properties of existence itself, and all things are governed by existence and what-ever it's rules are to which make up the foundation and essence of all there was, is, or ever will be.

Its thus nonsensical to say that I should consider another part of existence as GOD as that would be existence worshiping another part of itself as GOD. And if existence is GOD, that makes everything GOD.. And if Existence is not GOD, that invalidates anything of existence as GOD by consequence. Thus the concept of GOD is moot since you can't move the GOD goal post any higher than existence itself.

Post note:

This doesn't even go into the complexity in regards to cognitive systems theory to which would be required to support a conscious state in the first place, or even in regards to information science and theory... Wink

I only have a few moments, but your questions seem to me an error in definitions and based on assumptions and lacking a concept of world view, or experience in other modes of thinking. You almost seem to be defining existence as stuff. God can exist (although perhaps not in an atheistic or materialistic world view) without being made out of stuff. You are trying to imply that pantheism is required SINCE God IS made out of stuff/physical matter which is not the claim of any Jewdeo Christian that I have met. Your question is difficult to answer because it is non-sense. It would be like me asking you, why are you angry at a God you don't believe in, or even more nonsensical, it sounds like questions that I ask my 2 year old daughter to test her ability to identify the law of non-contradiction. I did not mean that in a belittling way, but I really must go. I know your questions make a lot of sense to you, and you may think members of the theistic world view are blind to obvious truths, but I have been an atheist for about half my life, and a Christian for half my life, and it is the atheistic life that looks blind to me looking back. I'm glad you are thinking about things. Keep it up. Research blood clotting or DNA... whenever we see information we see a creator. I'm very sorry... I love this stuff, but I have to get home to my daughter and son that I haven't seen much the last few days.

I'll ask you one hard question (I have hundreds, but I'll give you just one)...
Look at blood clotting or DNA synthesis, or the origin of the first cell... leave all of your pride and assumptions behind, and just study one thing without your rose colored glasses on... how can a Rube Goldberg machine evolve when all steps are necessary for life. If you don't believe in evolution, than you are perhaps a man of questions rather than answers. Explain to me the how a 20 step process (say blood clotting) can exist without a creator. Explain to me how DNA can exist without a creator... computer coding is to DNA as a candle is to the sun. Just as a virus does not produce good things in a computer, likewise, we simply do not see beneficial mutations in nature, and whenever we see information, we see a creator (the most simple DNA strand I know of is 53,000 codons, which is the information equivalent of about 264 to the 53,000th power based on chance assuming we have all the amino acids in abundance that are necessary to create life... translation is impossible with any amount of time or any amount of chance especially if you want to agree with modern science about how old the earth is, which I am perfectly ok with for the sake of arguement if nothing else).

If I wrote Cat in the sand, you would assume a creator, and certainly you would assume there was a creator behind a computer program, and DNA looks just like a computer program, only epically more advanced. Really gotta go... work on the blood clotting and get back to me. If you do not have any answers to offer, why are you talking? If there is no point in anything (eventually the sun will burn out, and by your world view there cannot be any ultimate purpose in anything), than why do you care so much? If the point of life is to procreate, than what is the purpose when the sun burns out?

Peace out. Love you guys. That annoying atheist that thinks he's a genius... please don't respond. You're not a genius, and I'm not an idiot... you just don't understand the concept of world view, and you're taking it out on me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 10:44 PM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2016 12:26 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(20-12-2016 09:24 PM)Trevor Wrote:  
(21-10-2012 12:08 AM)TheJackal Wrote:  As we know, there are many concepts of GOD to which include the Christian's idea of a GOD that supposedly created "everything", or as some how the source origin to all that exists. And then there are other examples such as the Pantheist GOD to which comes in a form, one of many, to which I will reference here. Hence some Pantheists see existence itself as the source origin, and as the Universal set of all sets to everything that is in and of existence. Hence existence itself being the very entity from which all things derive from. So in their context, Existence is the totality of all that exists as well as causality itself. Hence Existence is Causality and Reality itself as every force to cause, source origin of all there is, and every person, place, object, substance, or thing in and of existence. Under this context, existence is seen as a self-generating system capable of generating universes, stars, galaxies, planets, life, and conscious beings such as ourselves. It's an amazing thing, and almost supernatural as some might say! But it is not supernatural, It is the natural answer to the deepest questions of all.. Why are we here?, and where did we come from? And that answer has been starring humanity, us, in the face as it is everything around us, as well as in us, and literally as us.. "I am" in and of existence, and so are you.

It's simple to understand since Existence is stated here as Causality just as it is Reality itself. And Existence simply exists without creation due to the likely fact that non-existence can not ever actually and literally exist as an existing person, place, object, substance, or thing. Thus existence solves infinite regress, and represents a Universal set of all sets even if we don't, in science or philosophy, fully understand every aspect of it and how it works. And we all know how Christians love simplicity since it's hard to think.. So the answer to all things is simple:

Existence!

So this leads us to two questions that Christians will have a very hard time answering without self-refuting their position, or pandering to require the Pantheist GOD to which is that of existence itself. And these two questions are interconnected or in conjunction with each other to express why the concept of GOD is moot. So what are these two simple questions that utterly collapse the concept of GOD? Well, lets find out shall we?:

Here I present my two questions:

Getting a Christian to answer the first question is rather amusing, but getting them to answer the second one in relation to the first one is even more amusing.. Especially when consciousness can't exist without cause, or that no sentient / conscious entity can create that which themselves are slave to require in order to function or exist at all.. Hence, no conscious entity could ever solve infinite regress, or represent a Universal set of all sets. This means that no being with a conscious mind could ever represent to origins to existence since the only thing that can do that, and represent that, is Existence itself. Thus all things including conscious beings are emergent properties of existence itself, and all things are governed by existence and what-ever it's rules are to which make up the foundation and essence of all there was, is, or ever will be.

Its thus nonsensical to say that I should consider another part of existence as GOD as that would be existence worshiping another part of itself as GOD. And if existence is GOD, that makes everything GOD.. And if Existence is not GOD, that invalidates anything of existence as GOD by consequence. Thus the concept of GOD is moot since you can't move the GOD goal post any higher than existence itself.

Post note:

This doesn't even go into the complexity in regards to cognitive systems theory to which would be required to support a conscious state in the first place, or even in regards to information science and theory... Wink

I only have a few moments, but your questions seem to me an error in definitions and based on assumptions and lacking a concept of world view, or experience in other modes of thinking. You almost seem to be defining existence as stuff. God can exist (although perhaps not in an atheistic or materialistic world view) without being made out of stuff. You are trying to imply that pantheism is required SINCE God IS made out of stuff/physical matter which is not the claim of any Jewdeo Christian that I have met. Your question is difficult to answer because it is non-sense. It would be like me asking you, why are you angry at a God you don't believe in, or even more nonsensical, it sounds like questions that I ask my 2 year old daughter to test her ability to identify the law of non-contradiction. I did not mean that in a belittling way, but I really must go. I know your questions make a lot of sense to you, and you may think members of the theistic world view are blind to obvious truths, but I have been an atheist for about half my life, and a Christian for half my life, and it is the atheistic life that looks blind to me looking back. I'm glad you are thinking about things. Keep it up. Research blood clotting or DNA... whenever we see information we see a creator. I'm very sorry... I love this stuff, but I have to get home to my daughter and son that I haven't seen much the last few days.

I'll ask you one hard question (I have hundreds, but I'll give you just one)...
Look at blood clotting or DNA synthesis, or the origin of the first cell... leave all of your pride and assumptions behind, and just study one thing without your rose colored glasses on... how can a Rube Goldberg machine evolve when all steps are necessary for life. If you don't believe in evolution, than you are perhaps a man of questions rather than answers. Explain to me the how a 20 step process (say blood clotting) can exist without a creator. Explain to me how DNA can exist without a creator... computer coding is to DNA as a candle is to the sun. Just as a virus does not produce good things in a computer, likewise, we simply do not see beneficial mutations in nature, and whenever we see information, we see a creator (the most simple DNA strand I know of is 53,000 codons, which is the information equivalent of about 264 to the 53,000th power based on chance assuming we have all the amino acids in abundance that are necessary to create life... translation is impossible with any amount of time or any amount of chance especially if you want to agree with modern science about how old the earth is, which I am perfectly ok with for the sake of arguement if nothing else).

If I wrote Cat in the sand, you would assume a creator, and certainly you would assume there was a creator behind a computer program, and DNA looks just like a computer program, only epically more advanced. Really gotta go... work on the blood clotting and get back to me. If you do not have any answers to offer, why are you talking? If there is no point in anything (eventually the sun will burn out, and by your world view there cannot be any ultimate purpose in anything), than why do you care so much? If the point of life is to procreate, than what is the purpose when the sun burns out?

Peace out. Love you guys. That annoying atheist that thinks he's a genius... please don't respond. You're not a genius, and I'm not an idiot... you just don't understand the concept of world view, and you're taking it out on me.

I smells me some thread necromancy.

But I'm also bored and haven't had anything meaty to tear into lately, so let's go through this step by step. I disagreed with the OP, who isn't around these forums anymore, so I won't defend that position. But I do have to take issue with a lot that you said.

First, DNA looks nothing like an intelligently-designed computer program. Generally speaking, working computer programs are not riddled with junk code. Comments by any good software designer are clear and explanatory, and typically vanish at compile-time anyway. In contrast, DNA is a hodge-podge of functional parts, non-functioning parts, malfunctioning parts, and parts kinda bootstrapped in to do new things, but not that well. Once the task of knowing how the chemistry can be done is accomplished, any halfway-competent programmer could go about implementing the algorithm about a dozen times more efficiently than was actually done.

But, okay, more specifically. How could blood clotting evolve?

I don't know.

THEREFORE IT MUST HAVE BEEN GOD!

.... oh, wait, no, I know that the "I don't know what caused this therefore God did it" thought is raising a red flag for me. And it's a very big red flag, too. Hey someone wrote stuff on that red flag. Hmm. Let me look at it.

AIDS? Why did someone write "AIDS" on this red flag? .... oh, THAT'S right. Back in the 1980s, when AIDS was first coming into national awareness, Christians all around the nation declared exactly the phrase about AIDS. GOD DID IT. It was his righteous and wrathful vengeance upon all the gays for... well, for wholly victim-less activities. Congress, similarly overrun with these nutjobs at the time, agreed. With the cause of AIDS so well understood, money to research the new disease was cut off. Its spread could have been slowed or stopped entirely, but it wasn't. Because, you know, people figured out that God did it.

Huh, it also says "Cancer" on this here red flag. Why would it say that? Oh, right, because cancer ALSO was an infliction imposed by God. Not just a tendency and vulnerability encoded into our genes by a perfectly infallible and benevolent Creator. No, an active and immediate intervention to afflict His chosen victims. It wasn't until someone stopped and asked, hey, maybe God DIDN'T do this that we started getting medical research, and started finding cures for some types of cancer and treatments for others and prevention for still others. And yes, the Godly are getting in the way of all of that, even today.

And, "Green revolution"? That's that thing where we figured out industrial agriculture, vastly increasing yields of farmlands, drastically reducing world hunger, improving nutrition, and a host of other benefits. But how would we do that? After all, when asking why plants grow, we know that GOD DID IT. ... right? I mean, they knew that at one time, so it must be true, right?

"Orbital mechanics"? Oh, right, God causes the sun and moon and stars and planets to rise and set. Not just set them in motion, but actively moves them through the sky at any moment. Says so in the Bible. GOD DID IT. So all that fancy physics stuff that taught us to put communications satellites in orbit and gave us GPS so that emergency responders could save lives? We really don't need to ask the questions that let us invent that technology. Forget about working out orbital mechanics. God does it. That's all we need to know.

Having faith that everything is the work of God shuts down inquiry, and that is something with a great cost. It's measured in children dead of starvation, dead of treatable diseases, dead of a thousand other things that would be a problem if people let "God did it" get in the way of asking questions. The opportunity cost of thinking the way you do is measured in corpses.

So, how can a complex 20-step process work? I don't know. But I don't know doesn't mean God did it. You encourage us to ask questions -- not in so many words, but the spirit of it's still there. So, okay, I don't know how blood clotting could be consistent with evolutionary theory, but I shouldn't assume the answer that my ignorance must imply God. What IS the answer?

LET'S FIND OUT.

Okay, Miller and Levine have an answer.

Quote:To paraphrase Darwin, the notion that evolution could have produced a system as intricate as the blood clotting cascade seems, we might freely confess, "absurd in the highest possible degree." This is especially true if you believe, as Behe seems to, that clotting is not possible until the entire cascade of factors is assembled.

But we already know that evolution doesn't start from scratch, and it doesn't need fully-assembled systems to work. Remember the lobster system as an example. Blood clotting evolved there from two pre-existing proteins, normally found in separate compartments of the body, that had a fortuituous interaction when damage to a blood vessel brought them together. Once that interaction was established, natural selection did the rest.

Could something like this have happened here?

Remember, we're not starting from nothing. We're starting about 600 million years ago in a small pre-vertebrate. with a low-volume low-pressure circulatory system. Just like any small inverterbate with a circulatory system, our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks. In addition, that ancestral system would have had something else. Most of the time, hemorrage starts with cell injury, meaning that cells are broken in the vicinity of a wound and their contents are dumped out. That means, among other things, that all of a cell's internal signalling molecules are suddenly spilled out into the damaged vascular system. Included among the contents are a whole slew of internal signalling molecules, including prominent ones like cyclic adenosine monophosphate (abbreviated: cAMP), all dumped into the tissue surrounding a wound.

Why would a sudden gusher of cAMP in a wound be significant? Well, it turns out that vertebrates use cAMP as a signalling molecule to control the contractions of smooth muscle cells, the very sort of muscle cells that surround blood vessels. Therefore, the release of internal cAMP from broken cells would automatically cause smooth muscles around a broken vessel to contract, limiting blood flow and making it more likely that the blood's own sticky white cells would be able to plug the leak. That means that we already have some ability to limit damage and plug leaks in a primitive, low-pressure system. Not a bad place to begin.

Our next step is to consider the nature of blood itself. For reasons relating to osmotic pressure, the tendency of water to move across cell membranes, blood plasma is a viscous, protein-laden solution. And it's also important to note that the extracellular environment of ordinary tissue is very different from blood. These spaces are laden with protein signals, insoluble matrix molecules, and extracellular proteases that cut and trim these molecules to their final shapes and sizes. In fact, such proteases constitute one of the major forms of extracellular signalling. So the tissues of our ancestral vertebrate would be laden with protein-cutting enzymes for reasons completely unrelated to clotting.

Keeping all of this in mind, what would happen when a blood vessel broke in such an organism?

Well, protein-rich plasma flows into an unfamiliar environment, and sticky white cells quickly "glom" up against the fibers of the extracellular matrix. Tissue proteases, quite accidentally, are now exposed to a new range of proteins, and they cut many of them to pieces. The solubility of these new fragments vary. Some are more soluble than the plasma proteins from which they were trimmed, but many are much less soluble. The result is that clumps of newly-insoluble protein fragments begin to assumulate at the tissue-plasma interface, helping to seal the break and forming a very primitive clot. (Could one object that this is too primitive and too nonspecific to work? That it wouldn't be sufficient to seal breaks? Well, it turns out that you can't make this objection for the very simple reason that this is pretty much the clotting mechanism used today by a large number of invertebrates. Works for them, and therefore there is no reason why it wouldn't have worked for the ancestors of today vertebrates, either!)

Now we get down to business. A mutation duplicates an existing gene for a serine protease, a digestive enzyme produced in the pancreas. Gene duplications happen all the time, and they are generally of such little importance that they are known as "neutral" mutations, having no effect on an organism's fittness. However, the original gene had a control region that switched it on only in the pancreas. During the duplication, the control region of the duplicate is damaged so that the new gene is switched on in both the pancreas and the liver. As a result, the inactive form of the enzyme, a zymogen, is relesased into the bloodstream.

This causes no problem for the organism - most pancreatic proteases are inactive until a small piece near their active sites can be cut away by another protease. However, when damage to a blood vessel allows plasma to seep into tissue, suddenly our previously inactive plasma serine protease is activated by tissue proteases, increasing the overall protein-cutting activity at the site of the hemorrage. Blood clotting is enhanced, so our duplicate gene (with the mistargeted protein) is now favored by natural selection.

That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence. Because the selective value of the plasma protease is pretty low (it doesn't help clotting all that much), most of these changes make very little difference. But one day, through a well-understood process called "exon shuffling," a DNA sequence known as an "EGF domain" is spliced into one end of the protease gene. EGF stands for epidermal growth factor, a small protein used by cells throughout the body to signal other cells. EGF is so common that just about every tissue cell has "receptors" for it. These receptors are cell surface proteins shaped in such a way that they bind EGF tightly.

The fortuitious combination of a EGF sequence with the plasma protease changes everything.

In a flash, the tissue surrouding a broken blood vessel is now teeming with receptors that bind to the new EGF sequence on our serum protease. As a result, high concentrations of the circulating protease bind directly to the surfaces of cells near a wound. The proteases are activated in the same way, but now their proteolytic activities are highly localized. The production of a clot of insoluble protein fragments is now faster and more specific than ever. Organisms with the new EGF-protease can clot their blood much more quickly than before, and therefore are favored by natural selection. To emphasize its role in the clotting process, that cell surface protein with the EGF receptor is called Tissue Factor.

What happens next? Well, remember the case of the lobster in which a duplicate of a circulating protein (vitellogenin) became specialized to produce a clot-forming protein (lobster fibrinogen)? Once we have a situation in which every hemorrage activates a protease bound to tissue receptors, a gene duplicate of one of the major plasma proteins would then be under strong selective pressure to increase its ability to interact with the bound protease. Fibrinogen, the soluble protein that now is now the primary target of proteolysis in the clotting cascade, clearly arose in this way. Natural selection would favor each and every mutation or rearrangement that increased the sensitivity of fibrinogen to the plasma protease, dramatically enhancing the ability of the new protease to form specific clots of insoluble protein.

There is no doubt that these three steps, each one supported by classic Darwinian mechanisms, would have been sufficient to fashion a rudimentary clotting system. This would leave us with system in which circulating plasma contains both an inactive serine protease and its fibrinogen target. The protease would activated by contact with tissue factor, and the active protease, in turn, would cleave sensitive sites in fibrinogen to form a clot. This system wouldn't be nearly as quick, as responsive, or as sensitive as the current system of vertebrate clotting, but it would work a little better than the system that preceeded it, and that's all that evolution requires.

Huh, I would NEVER HAVE GUESSED THAT. I guess the lesson here is that we can't really judge the plausibility, unseen and unaware, of the sort of complex process that highly trained scientists spend their lives unraveling just by sitting in our armchairs gazing at our navels. "I don't know" doesn't mean "GOD". WHODATHUNKIT!

Also, you cite "information" as part of your argument, which is another red flag for me. You don't expand on it enough to give me anything to pick apart, but I should point out that if you're using some sort of argument from information theory or entropy, you're almost certainly misrepresenting how information theory works. Information in information theory is a bit like an original radio signal that's been garbled by static or competing signals, a bit like trying to listen to a jazz radio station when in a car outside is blasting hip-hop really loud and you can't make out what you're trying to listen to. The hip-hop isn't "new information" under information theory. It, and everything else interfering with us hearing the original signal, is entropy as defined in Information Theory. Similarly, new evolutionary features are entropic in information theory, because they distort the original information about the ancestors. It's true that you can't get new information in information theory... but evolution doesn't involve new information at all.

Note that not a single thing I've said here implies that a God doesn't exist. It just points out that the particular arguments that you've advanced for showing that a God exists fail so, so, so hard. It is conceptually possible to have both a god and evolutionary origins, and a majority of Christians in the developed world believe in both.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
20-12-2016, 10:54 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Thanks Reltzik, good explanation. I think this was just a drive by. The christmas myth brings religious nuts out of the woodwork.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 11:01 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(Springy G wanders through undead thread, swinging Clue-By-Four™ to fend off the zombies) Damn! Should've picked up a boomstick at S-Mart on Black Friday.

(20-12-2016 09:24 PM)Trevor Wrote:  If there is no point in anything (eventually the sun will burn out, and by your world view there cannot be any ultimate purpose in anything), than why do you care so much?

Why, Trevor?

Because I'm alive right now. Dead people cannot care. Live ones can care, and do. The entirety of our experience is in the current moment, with the past and the future just shadows of our actual experience.

Eternal life negates meaning and purpose. When there is no end point, there can be no point to it all.

Meaning and purpose are entirely subjective, unique to every sentient being who has ever lived. You cannot get it from a god.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
20-12-2016, 11:02 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2016 11:06 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(20-12-2016 10:54 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Thanks Reltzik, good explanation. I think this was just a drive by. The christmas myth brings religious nuts out of the woodwork.

Yeah, well. T'is also the season for nutcrackers.





This is just about the only Christmas music I can stand right now.

EDIT:
(20-12-2016 11:01 PM)Astreja Wrote:  (Springy G wanders through undead thread, swinging Clue-By-Four™ to fend off the zombies) Damn! Should've picked up a boomstick at S-Mart on Black Friday.

Should've shopped smart. Should've shopped S-Mart.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
20-12-2016, 11:05 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Laugh out load Clue-By-Four. Bowing ...the rest is good, too. Thumbsup

I think there may be...a war in heaven
Paradise beneath the smoking gun
As every saint and small town saviour
Race to justify their chosen one
~ Robert Plant, Another Tribe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2016, 11:27 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
Quote: and I'm not an idiot...

#4yearstoolate

#fucktimestamps

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kingschosen's post
20-12-2016, 11:34 PM
RE: The Hardest 2 questions you could ever ask a Christian.
(20-12-2016 11:27 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
Quote: and I'm not an idiot...

#4yearstoolate

#fucktimestamps

Laugh out load

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: