125 Rebuttals, 26 to 30

This is a post in a series of responses to this forum post.

Let's dive right back into it.

26: The Proof of Astounding New Complex Genes

The basic premise of this argument can be found in the first part of point four, which reads as such:

4. The complexity of genetic control at this level astounds researchers

 The author then extrapolates in point five, as follows:

5. The level of coordination of such genetic complexity is almost beyond human comprehension and clearly the product of incredible bioengineering.

Importantly, the operative word here is 'almost.' It's not beyond our comprehension, otherwise the previous three points which preceded it would not be there.  Literally, if we couldn't understand it, we certainly couldn't write about it.

If you don't believe me, just try this simple experiment for yourself.  Take a piece of paper, and perhaps a pencil.  Start writing about something that's literally incomprehensible.  Not merely something which astounds you, but that you literally cannot comprehend.  It's quite impossible to think of something you can't think of, now isn't it?

6. Such complex bioengineering can/could be done only by a superhuman person all men call God.

 This is such a waffle of a sentence, but let's try to keep it simple.  Basically, the argument is that it's so complex that it can't be designed, therefore something designed it.  It's so incomprehensible that it can still be comprehended by the author to make this point.  It escapes human understanding, but somehow this guy understands it well enough to know that.  Need I continue?

7. God exists.

That doesn't follow from the last point.  Literally, there are hundreds of other options which could (and at least one that does) explain it, which are devoid of any god, including his.  This point is tired, and maybe I'll start skipping it.

Also, if all men call it god, does that mean that anyone who doesn't call his imaginary friend 'god' isn't man?  I digress.  Let's move to the next argument which doesn't argue anything.

27: The Argument from the DNA's Molecular Motor

Based upon the phrasing of this one, I'm guessing that the author doesn't understand what those last two words mean.  Maybe this one will have a coherent point that isn't just copypasta.

Unfortunately, the first three points are.  Which brings us to this set. Please note that all red text is my annotations, not part of the original text of the argument.

5. Even viruses, [as though that's all that matters] which are not even alive by the scientific definition of being able to reproduce independently [which includes things like fire, salt crystals, quartz crystals, and lots of things], show incredible design [no, they don't].

6. If [and you've shown no evidence that it's the case] design is what we observe [we do not], then there must be a designer.

Well, sure. Similarly, if we do not observe design, then the corollary is that there must not be one?  Ergo, having noticed no design (in the sense he means it), we can conclude, by his own logic, that no god is observed.  Next point.

I found some raccoon prints on a log by the river.
Embiggen to see them!

28: Basically the same thing as 27. Seriously, go check it out.

The basic premise of this argument is that, since things move, and humans created things that move, only a god can create things that move.  Similarly, that everything which moves is created by god.  It's a terrible argument, and I'll pick it up here.  Let's try some more of that nifty red text stuff.

7. Machines found in cells are absolutely extraordinary [it's true! The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell] in their characteristics, inspiring the creativity of the most advanced researchers [also correct. scientists routinely use cellular stuff to make things nowadays]. However, the cell machines although almost identical in form but different in size are superior in efficiency to the mechanical devices that the best engineers design for everyday life [which is because cells are amazingly efficient, because they had to evolve to be that way].
8. This indicates that the biomachines found in cells require a level of intelligent design [although it actually doesn't, because point seven clearly illustrates that we're borrowing ideas from the cells, not the other way around] f, jpg, jpeg, png, gif, pdf, zip etc…
ar greater than what man has accomplished [well, arguably, if we're able to use them to our advantage, we're multiplying their abilities, but either way, this point doesn't follow].

I hope you can see the logical inconsistencies present herein.   I sh26 to [{an't tarry longer, as we've more redundant posts to cover!  Let me know if you like the red text stuff!

29: Argument from the genetic code-like (GCL) binary representation.

So we have more copypasta, which tells us that we've got a code that we use to represent specific sequences of nucleotides.  This is in fact a code which does exist, which is a sort of shorthand for the various bits of stuff that exist in DNA, etc.  We are then presented with this dubiously-worded sentence as point three:

3. The GCL binary representation and the genetic code are both isomorphic systems. Thus, the characteristics that are true of the GCL binary representation must also be true of the genetic code.

Taken on it's own, this isn't a terrible thing.  However, it's dubiousness comes full circle in point five:

5. Such a graceful symmetry, organization, and structure indicates a code that has been designed for a purpose.

Basically, it's saying that because we developed a code to explain DNA, that the DNA itself must also be such a designed code.  This isn't true, and it's a category error.  It's exactly the same as saying that, because we have a system for naming trees, they must have been designed to receive those names.  An 'Elm' isn't simply an 'Elm' just because it's the name we gave it, but because god designed it specifically to be an 'Elm.'  We did indeed invent the code which describes trees, exactly as we did with DNA.  However, there's absolutely no indication that Elm trees were designed to be Elm trees just so we could give them that name, or so that they could occupy elm-shaped voids in the atmosphere where they happen to reside.  This is similarly the kind of symmetry that exists in DNA, such that a tree occupies space which would otherwise be filled with air in its absence.  Labeling it does not mean it was designed to be labeled, or to signify anything in the code we gave it.

30: The argument of the double function of the genetic code. 

For disclosure, the article from which the information was pulled is titled "The Hidden Codes that Shaped Protein Evolution." The author is literally using an article on evolution to cherry-pick bits of information to argue against evolution.  I don't have access to the full article, but I can surmise what the actual points being made are, given the information in this argument.

Point four seems to be the first bit not directly from the article, based on the writing style.

4. According to the research [which is nowhere to be found in your absent citations], natural selection constrains or eliminates change [sometimes, and other times it favors change] (purifying selection) [I'm not sure of this term in context] is not helpful for creating new organs or functions [except when it is, of course]. 

Our intrepid forum user shows great disdain over his inability to understand evolution, and even more to understand that evolution can exist in a designed universe.  Any argument which lays its fundamental groundwork on the idea that evolution cannot exist within a designed universe is flawed, because it could.  A designer could easily design such an algorithm, it's how chatbots learn things.  I leave the Google search for 'Microsoft Tay' as an exercise for the viewer.

5. Thus, for Darwinists [citation needed] to explain unguided physical processes [evolution is guided by multiple things, but none of them is a designer] is already impossible [citation needed] and with this new discovery [it would be the first new thing in 30 arguments] they are even in bigger trouble [I dunno, I think the biggest trouble is the grammatical inconsistency of this argument].

As we can see, this is just a terrible projection.  This is a person who doesn't understand science, who doesn't understand that being wrong can be the most exciting thing in science.  

6. The words: information, architecture, optimized, and function are not always and not only referring to a person with thinking feeling and willing. Other proposed agents [like the god you speak of] cannot on their own give information [can god show himself?], design [what designed god, again?], optimize [can god remove junk DNA, or cancer?] or execute [any joke here would be in bad taste] tasks. This has never been shown.

Basically, the entire premise is that a signifying gene can act in more than one way, and this could never happen in nature.  We all know quite well that one thing cannot serve two purposes depending on context, in nature.  Actually, that's bollocks, so let's end it there for now.  Again, if you like what I'm doing here, feel free to let me know!  I'm on twitter @acce245 and I'm on youtube.  Look me up, check my stuff out, and if you really enjoy reading my words, follow me on patreon!

Best regards to all of you, and have a great day!

Determinism

To those of you just joining my blog, and to those who've been here since the beginning, welcome!  I'll be taking a break tonight from my series of 125 Rebuttals, to address a very old topic which I think could use some breaking down.

Context is Everything.

I was party to a Twitter debate recently, concerning free will.

If you believe these are impossible freedoms, then you must agree that uncaused free will is an illusion. https://t.co/7YbvdbUJmN

— Religulous (@religulous) March 4, 2016

You can view the context at that link, but I'm going to skip ahead a bit to this part:

@LarryJFJF @religulous @acce245 Really guys, determinism and free will get on just fine. See https://t.co/Iuh7oVyuKR

— Marvin B. Edwards (@MarvinBEdwards) March 4, 2016

 That's the important bit, because I promised I'd address the claims that exist within the context of that blog post.  I shall be as respectful as I can, and I'll do my best to avoid copying the full text here.  It's typically much easier to address points when they're directly on this page, however, so there will be some of it here.  Fair use and all that.  I recommend visiting his site, if for nothing else than to verify that I'm actually addressing the arguments he makes.

What is Determinism?

In keeping with the flow of his blog, I'll address each section in the same way it's presented.  I'll first start by saying that he's not using the reasonably standard definition of determinism, which google gladly provides as follows:

de·ter·min·ism

dəˈtərməˌnizəm/

noun

PHILOSOPHY

1. the doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will. Some philosophers have taken determinism to imply that individual human beings have no free will and cannot be held morally responsible for their actions.

For handy reference, here's his definition.

 Determinism is the belief in the reliability of cause and effect. We are so used to living in a deterministic universe that it would be difficult to imagine anything else.

 Suffice to say, his basic definition isn't actually that far from this mark.  It is via illustration, however, that the actual terms he's using to define 'determinism' aren't actually what he's intended.

Given is the example that there exists a dial, which can be adjusted from complete determinism to complete non-determinism.  Adjusting this dial one way, and reality maintains consistency.  Adjust it the other, and it loses all consistency.  The example specifically mentions objects literally changing to other objects.  This is a fallacy of false correlation, for one, because it doesn't actually address the argument of will, but rather of the consistency of the universe.  Apples do not spontaneously become bananas (but some subatomic particles can spontaneously become others, etc), and even if they did, it says nothing about the actions that may be performed upon it.  The consistency of the universe isn't really part of the greater argument of determinism, which deals with our ability to interact with the universe, not the universe's ability to spontaneously change.

Even so, in a universe which could spontaneously change, that doesn't rule out the fact that a complete lack of consistency (his definition of determinism) would have no bearing on freedom of will, or even its existence.  It's entirely possible that the spontaneity would have its own rules.  However, I'm getting off-track here, so let's continue.

The claim is then made that "we need a deterministic universe." While it may be true that organisms might not develop via evolution in such a universe lacking consistency, it in no way rules out that organisms like us could just crop up, completely 'indeterminate' of past or future.  Surely we need a deterministic universe to do things which we can do in our universe, but there's no evidence that things like us couldn't exist in some other universe.  It sounds like a fine-tuning fallacy, so I'll leave it at that.

His next statement is basically correct, regarding how science presumes rationality (although this isn't strictly true - if the universe were not rational, science would observe that too).  I'll leave it stand for now, because we find out something interesting in the next paragraph:

But there is another side to determinism that really bothers people. If cause and effect are perfectly reliable, then the future can only unfold in a single way. This bothers us because it makes us feel like the future is out of our control.

Well, it might bother some of us, but it's not what I'm here to discuss.  I want to call this a fallacy of composition/division, but I'm not sure it is exactly.  It's definitely a modified Appeal to Consequence of Belief fallacy, which is a form of Appeal to Emotion fallacy.  There's absolutely nothing stating that we are in control of the future.  Lots of things beyond our control can happen.

Also, and perhaps more importantly, it shows a more basic misunderstanding of cosmology and quantum sciences.  That's where that composition/division fallacy works in.  The macro universe doesn't work like the micro.  Some things really are going to happen whether we like them or not.  Other things we might actually be able to have influence over.

I will take one moment here to say that I think the idea of 'will' is merely an idea.  As a complex organism, we have at our disposal an open system, rather than a simply closed one like the entire universe.  Entropy becomes important here a bit, because we can actually harvest energy and use it for purposes other than what it would have been used 'naturally.'  That is, if you exclude humans from the rest of nature.  Arguably, building rockets is one of the natural outcomes of a planet like earth existing long enough around a star.  Everything we are comes from nature.  This doesn't mean we are forced to do one thing or another, but simply that anything we do is natural.  This'll probably be an important part later, so I thought I'd simply take a moment now to mention it.

But [the idea that the universe only has one outcome] is an illusion. To be true, determinism must include all causes. One of those causes is us.

Actually, we're not a cause, unless we're also an effect.  Your parents had a choice to give you birth, presuming you survived your birth and are now able to read this.  If not, sorry about your luck, I guess?  I mean, you're not going to be reading this anyway.

The laws of nature don’t just hold atoms together and keep the planets in orbit. They also keep our blood running, give power to our muscles, and provide the neurological framework in which we think and feel.

Again, all of those things are because atoms get held together.  The strong force and weak force are pretty important, but don't really have a lot to do with entropy at the level we tend to experience it.  Similarly, it doesn't have much bearing on will.  If anything, it introduces a case where 'will' doesn't actually exist, but we do indeed still have the ability to make choices.  I'd call this a quasi-will universe, wherein when a system becomes complex enough, it can indeed start to use the laws of nature to its benefit.  Which is a pretty damning argument against free will, considering that most things don't choose how to use their energy, but rather work to utilize it in the most efficient form.  In fact, your body is doing this as you read these words.

I'm gonna let some of that stuff sink in.  Let's take a small intermission here.

Since we're on the topic of free will anyway...

I wonder if that video will be important later?

What are we?

Well, there's a loaded question fallacy.  It presumes we 'are' something.  I'm something of a nihilist,  but for the sake of not wanting to drag this out forever, I'll grant that one.  Here's what he says we are:

We are purposeful causal agents in a deterministic universe.

Well, maybe.  Again, the entire universe may not be deterministic, and even if it is, one of the effects is that the determinism can determine that some aspects aren't. It's a bit meta, this argument, but I'm sticking with it.

Like any other biological organism, we come into this world with a built-in purpose: to survive, thrive, and reproduce.

Well, for a particular definition of purpose, I completely agree.  I don't like using the word purpose, however, because it implies something that isn't actually part of the given defintion.

And, more so than most biological organisms, we have evolved a complex brain that helps us adapt our behavior to our environment and to adapt our environment to our own needs.

See, that's what I was afraid of.  We didn't consciously decide one day that we need a bigger brain.  It's literally deterministic: our brains grew because people with larger brains tended to mate together. and produce offspring who, on average over long periods of time, happened to have larger brains.  This is a fallacy of conflation (ambiguity), such that two different definitions of purpose are being used here.  I really don't like that word.  Here's what google has to say on it:

pur·pose

ˈpərpəs/

noun

noun: purpose; plural noun: purposes

1. 1.

   the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

   
   

   • a person's sense of resolve or determination.

     
     
   • a particular requirement or consideration, typically one that is temporary or restricted in scope or extent.

     
     

There is indeed a reason why we exist: because of progeny.  There is exactly the same kind of purpose to our brain: it exists because we selectively bred for that trait, whether we were conscious of it or not.   It certainly helps us make decisions, lots of which are done autonomously, but a few of which might be conscious.

The second sense of the word can literally be seen as following from this: mating is the purpose of sexuality.  Hunger is the purpose for eating.  Logic is the purpose for wanting to figure things out, to make the first two easier.  As an asexual, I don't find people sexually attractive.  I still feel those purposeful urges (not so different from needing to use the bathroom, or eat).  I don't think there's any special purpose in not having sexuality, any more than there is in having it.  But I digress, let us continue.

The rest of this section does not argue effectively that it is the case, even though it's the conclusion which is given absent logical premises to support it.

In short, we cause stuff, we make stuff happen. And we do these things for a purpose: to survive and thrive as individuals, as societies, and as a species.

Again, pure determinism actually does account for that.  We do things because things cause us to do them, and some things happen because of the stuff we did.  It's what I'd call a fallacy of ignoring a common cause, or perhaps a false dichotomy.  No argument has been made effectively yet, for the conclusion provided, and it ignores any argument in-between (as well as the argument that it could simply not exist, or be consistently inconsistent like some kinds of entropy/open systems, etc).

What is Free Will?

Now here's the part of the article where things should start to get interesting. It is, after all, the whole point of the prior two sections existing, one presumes.

Within a deterministic universe, we decide what we will do.

Actually, you just argued against that in the previous two sections.  In a deterministic universe, it's actually impossible to do that.  I think that generally our universe is deterministic: stars will die, black holes will collapse, and so on.  I think that specifically, some things aren't bound exactly this way.  In fact, he also made this argument earlier.  I stick by my assertion that a quasi-will state exists for any sufficiently-advanced organism.

The “free” distinguishes our own decisions from cases where someone forces us to do what they want, against our will. In those cases, our will is not free, but subordinate to theirs.

The only problem is, if you're arguing for free will from determinism, it's certainly a choice whether or not to obey the coercion.  You can hold your bladder indefinitely if you so desired, but you might die.  It would likely be extremely painful, but there's nothing (apart from your own physical limitations) that actually stops you doing that, or so free will actually argues.  If we follow this backwards a bit, let's imagine that a person wants something badly but can't afford it.  Is the person coerced into stealing it simply because some other factors limit that person's income?  Most people would say that theft is an act of free will, however, there is definite coercion (in the form of a price, or of laws, or any number of other factors) which should limit free will.  The same goes with speed limits.  Do you actually have free will to violate speed limits, or do you not have free will since you're being coerced into not doing that?

Again, this kind of argument for free will breaks down as a false dichotomy.  However, in either a quasi-will, or will-free scenario, the choices are best framed as "what's the most advantageous?" It's not dissimilar at all from other natural biological processes, like evolution or mating pressures.

I'm going to skip the next couple sections, as I think the last couple paragraphs here have addressed most of the arguments presented there.  This will give you a good opportunity to consider both sides as well, if you're able to, that is.  Maybe you feel as though my side, or his side, is coercing you into thinking one or the other is correct.  It's a bit of a (modified) slippery slope, I guess, is what I'm saying.

Myths of Incompatibility

Well, as I discussed earlier, the two are not mutually exclusive necessarily. It's merely my claim that 'will' doesn't exist as presented here, and possibly doesn't exist at all, unless it exists in some quasi-state (which makes the most sense, I think), like a will of advantages as I posited a couple paragraphs ago.

Since we're on the idea of the future and the past being set in stone, let's take some words from an expert.  Sit back, make some popcorn, grab a beer or draw some tea.  I think you'll enjoy this.  It's only nine more minutes.  If you've read this far, you owe yourself something nice like this video, don't you think?  I do.  Also, this video is quite lengthy, but you only need to watch perhaps the first 8-10 minutes to get my point.  By all means, I suggest watching the entire thing.

As should be quite apparent now, the idea that the past and the future are separable is not such a strong idea.  Partially, this is because time doesn't move just one direction, and partially this is because of observation.  Your observation that you move forward in time is dependent on something we've possibly not figured out yet.  Why do we only experience time in the direction that we do?  Why does the future not seem determined, even though every bit of evidence shows us that it probably is?  It probably has something to do with the observation itself, collapsing the waveform that is 'choice' into the one you actually observed in this direction in time.  It's entirely possible that every 'choice' you could ever make was made simultaneously.

While his argument didn't delve into it here, it's the same argument against a god having will.  If a god can literally see everything that exists all at once, it would be impossible for it to draw any meaning from anything.  For it would observe everything, including the infinite observations where it isn't necessary, and it wouldn't be able to react to any of them.  You might ask why, and I'd tell you simply that it's because such a god could only observe the things it could observe.  If it observed everything in this way, it would make literally every choice ever.  If it didn't, it wouldn't, and it would be forever prohibited from it.  This is why we say it's complicated to think about things outside of nature, the universe, etc.  We've gotta master this one before we try jumping on toward the next one.

If you managed to get all the way here, congratulations!  You have some wonderful mental stamina, and I look forward to your continued readership!

125 Rebuttals, #4

This is a post in a series of rebuttals to the claims made on this site.  Today I shall be starting with the fourth argument.

Before I jump in, I'd like to take this moment to let you know I have a youtube channel.  I haven't done much with it yet, but here's a short clip of some neat ice formation I found in my yard the other day.

With that out of the way, let's move merrily along!

4: The Argument of the Contradicting Theories of the Origins of Life.

The statement here is a false premise in itself, since there's currently only one theory on how life came to be, and that's via abiogenesis.  Also, I'm not sure that it's actually a theory yet, as it's actually an area of study rather than a proper description of the natural process.  There are indeed several potential triggers which could have started the more complex processes going, but none of them rule out natural processes in the slightest.  Let's take a look at the premises here, because as always, this series of rebuttals isn't to teach you specifics of complex things.  The point of this series is to demolish bad thinking and faulty logic.  Again, if there's at least some interest, perhaps I'll delve into the more complex stuff later.  I don't need it here, and without further ado, the first premise:

1a. Researchers at Cambridge created an RNA enzyme that worked at freezing temperatures. They said: ”Ice could have aided the emergence of self-replication in the prebiotic chemical world.”
1b. But Jack Szostak1 threw a snowball: the created molecule cannot replicate itself.  “I’m afraid we still have a long way to go to get a self-replicating ribozyme.”

Well, isn't this interesting.  I'm going to ignore the logic part of the argument for a minute.  I was curious to find the context of this quote given by Jack Szostak.  One of the first sources I came across in a google search was this, this, and this. It seems as though premise 1a and 1b here are literally a plagiarization of something.  As a matter of fact, I'm going to pull up the original New Scientist article, where he's cited, to give this some actual context.  The intellectual dishonesty of the folks who started this quote mine, to leave the source out, is blatantly dodgy.  Here's what New Scientist quoted him as actually saying, in context.

The RNA enzyme’s effectiveness at cold temperatures suggests ice was crucial to the first life. When a mix of RNA and metal ions freezes, growing ice crystals suck up the water, leaving tiny pockets of RNA and concentrated salt. RNA replication can happen in these pockets. “They’re a little bit like artificial cells,” says Holliger, and could be where evolution started.

“It certainly makes a cold RNA world something to think about,” says RNA expert Adrian Ferré-D’Amaré of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

However, the theory has some weaknesses. At cold temperatures, RNA strands often stick together, making it tricky to separate them after the RNA has been copied. Primitive life would need to warm up to separate the strands, saysJack Szostak of Harvard Medical School. “It couldn’t just live at continuously cold temperatures.”

True, says Holliger, but there’s a fix. “Ice freezes and melts all the time, so you can easily see how an RNA replicator could be enclosed and then released in a cyclical way and allowed to spread.”

Szostak also points out that the enzyme only occasionally makes long strands of RNA. “I’m afraid we still have a long way to go to get a self-replicating ribozyme.”

SOURCE: NEW SCIENTIST

I realize that takes up a bit more information than I'd normally put for a quote, but I feel this is very important.   Sadly, it wasn't the top result, but google did a very good job including it in the non-replicated sources.  It's also important to note that, at the time RNA-like structures would have been reproducing, life would have already started within the implied definition of the author's argument.  RNA is a basic constituent of the thing we typically call life.  There are simpler mechanisms which can self-replicate, like the mRNA molecules, which we might not call alive.  However, under the author's argument, life would have 'started' before this point, if its catalyst were indeed 'competing' with other theories about abiogenesis.

Sorry, I guess I misspoke earlier.  I shall indeed be giving free biology lessons, it appears.  Anyway, let's move onto the next premises asserted by this facetious slack-wit.

2a. Wayne Roberge, a professor of physics within the School of Science at Rensselaer recently re-introduced a formerly discredited idea where “a new look at the early solar system introduces an alternative to a long-taught, but largely discredited, theory that seeks to explain how bio-molecules were once able to form inside of asteroids.” 
2b. But Roberg also said: “We’re just at the beginning of this…it would be wrong to assert that we’ve solved this problem.”

Oh, thanks for reminding me.  Two fallacies of appeal to authority, all in a neat little row. The inability of the author to understand that he's not even applying them correctly is astounding.  Similarly, the fallacies constitute a special pleading, in that they accept part of what the expert does based on who they are, but not the stuff that is involved in parts of quotes they don't like.  You can't have it both ways, sir or madam.

I'm not sure what to call the other author at this point, so ADMIN shall now be known as PSH.  Because he's a Plagiarizing Slackjaw Halfwit cur.  PSH it is.

So, PSH is basically trying to set up that panspermia is one of the ways life could have arisen on earth. This is possible.  It still doesn't solve where that life came from to begin with.  It also ignores the fact that physical things can't move fast enough to populate everything in the universe from one chance thing.  This logic only serves to extend the overall argument, not to discuss the actual origin of the life that was on that comet, or what have you.  Panspermia isn't typically given as a form of abiogenesis, since the abiogenesis that would have ultimately led to life on that bit of space junk still requires an explanation.  Much like turtles, it can't just be comets or asteroids or whatever, all the way down.

3a. A coacervate is a tiny spherical droplet of assorted organic molecules (specifically, lipid molecules) which is held together by hydrophobic forces from a surrounding liquid. The idea of these theoretical bubbles in which the magic of life happened was introduced by Oparin in 1920s. 

3b. Dutch researchers Ekaterina Sokolova, Evan Spruijt et al. revisited Oparin’s theory of creation of “artificial cell-like environment in which the rate of mRNA production is increased significantly” however, without explaining the origin of the complex molecular machines DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase.   

4a. “We propose that in early geological history clay hydrogel provided a confinement function for biomolecules and biochemical reactions," said Dan Luo, professor of biological and environmental engineering and a member of the Kavli Institute at Cornell for Nanoscale Science. (Nov. 5, 2013) 

Again, PSH has shown a complete inability to comprehend how premises work. First and foremost, all the points down through 4 are not premises.  They're statements people have made, hypothesizing about what might have been a condition.  It's important to note that it's all based on actual science, however.  Observations were made which led to the conclusions given having some validity.  Experiments were done, which produced things we'd predicted should happen.  If something we'd predicted hadn't happened, the predictions would have been thrown out or retested, to find what variables actually led to the various thing here.

For example, here's how science basically works, in case you're unfamiliar, or simply haven't had a science course in twenty years:

1. Observe that something happened.
2. Come up with a hypothesis as to what caused it.
3. Attempt to use the hypothesis to predict what should happen.
4. Do experiments to find out if hypothesis predicts correctly some later action.
5. If hypothesis doesn't explain (can't predict) the future action, discard and try again.

This is literally the entire process through which science works.  When something gets to number 5 enough times, and is never wrong in our history of testing, it goes from a hypothesis to a theory, or potentially a law.  This is why the scientists in the above assertions can do this.  They made a prediction that, for example, RNA of some sort should be able to exist and work in ice.  Simply because it couldn't be made perfectly doesn't mean it wasn't made, or that it didn't function in ice.  The hypothesis predicted an outcome accurately.  It's important to remember this as we approach the next premise PSH gives us:

4b. The Bible, the Koran and even Greek mythology has suggested for thousands of years that life began as earth, dust or clay.

Well, no.  The bible claims that life began as the breath of god (Gen 1, 2), not dust.  The Koran asserts that life began as thick clots of blood (sura XCVI).   The Greek pantheon (and subsequently titans, cyclopses, nymphs, and so on) actually started as a giant orgy involving Cronus, Gaea, and the rest.  Not a single one of them claims life came from dust, but that life was a product of something involving some kind of divine touch.  Ergo, very false premise.  Also, special pleading, since PSH is going to claim that since some god exists, it must be his god (two premises PSH has not shown). But we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.

4c. New theory is that clay is a breeding ground for chemicals which it ‘absorbs like a sponge’ and eventually leads to proteins and DNA forming.

Well, considering we didn't even know about Germ Theory until around 150 years ago, I'd have to agree that it's a relatively new concept.  Although, the wording here is very tenuous, and probably PSH is gonna screw it all up.  Also, clay's not special in this regard.  Vents at the bottom of the ocean harbor life, and they're amazingly hot and lack clay. Lots of things which aren't clay can 'harbor life.'  Also, if it's such a new idea, how do you claim ancient religions somehow knew about it? Not a single one mentions clay being a 'breeding ground' for life.  All of them talk about how gods created life.  It's astounding the level of intellectual dishonesty required for this stance.

4d. One little problem remains: “How these biological machines evolved remains to be explained,” the Science Daily article points out.

Again, it's clear these articles are being pulled blindly from somewhere, and that the author hasn't even had the decency to check what's going on here.   It's interesting how that link goes to some child's textbook, and not a Science Daily article.  I'll pull the significant bit here:

How these biological machines evolved remains to be explained, Luo said. For now his research group is working to understand why a clay hydrogel works so well, with an eye to practical applications in cell-free protein production.   

Science Daily

 So, as you can see, they're still working it out.  They are developing new hypotheses, working on what mechanisms explain reality.  PSH is simply asserting that we can never know, despite the fact that it appears we will in a relatively short time.  As a matter of being thorough, here's a link to Dr. Luo's website, specifically a paper published in 2014 regarding some of the exact same science PSH just said couldn't be known.  Let that sink in a moment.  I don't want to hit you with the next premises at full-throttle if you've not recovered from that whiplash.

5. Till now all the contradictory theories of origin of life falsify one another.
 Well, now we have something that resembles a premise.  Let's break it down.  First, we're not dealing with theories, as I stated earlier.  These are still hypotheses.  Also, they don't falsify one another.

The “building blocks of life” can’t be cold and hot at the same time.

• False dichotomy: the building blocks of life could simply have a large range of temperatures at which they can function or survive.  Much like how seeds can survive winter and grow in the summer, or grow some 32,000 years later. Some seeds require fire to reproduce.  

They can’t be at deep sea vents and in asteroids at the same time. 

• False dichotomy: the building blocks of life can indeed exists in extreme conditions.  I just showed you two examples thereof.  

They can’t be dry and wet at the same time. 

• False premise and false dichotomy: Here we have no evidence of the claim, including no evidence that it's a dichotomy.

The metabolism-first and genetics-first scenarios are mutually incompatible and impossible.

• I already dealt with this one in the previous post.  Similarly, false dichotomy (it can be simultaneous, and probably has to be).   

6. Moreover, none of the above theories answers the question: where did biological information come from?

Well, except that, as I demonstrated last post, by 'information' you mean 'energy,' ergo the 'information' comes from the sun, at least on our planet.  I'm not going to rehash yesterday's post for you, because it's like the Beatles said, 'that was yesterday.'

7. For the origin of life to take place there is a need for a complex system that has all the ingredients for a genetic code, and the machinery to read and translate it, encased in a cell with active transport. These all have to be present and working together from the beginning.

False premise by argument a priori, modified appeal to heaven (there simply must have been something complex!) which is simply a somewhat specific argument from ignorance (I can't imagine how it's otherwise!), false analogy (a cell is not its constituent parts and processes, ergo there's no dichotomy of existence/nonexistence as only options - it can simply develop over time, in unison with other features), and so on.  This premise is physically hard to read, because it's so terrible.

8. Such an irreducible complex system gives evidence for creation with intelligence.

I feel as though my 'false premise' button is getting worn out, so I'll go with fallacy from affirming the consequent, though one could just as easily go with existential fallacy: presuming that 'complex systems' must fall in the category of 'creations.'

9. That person with super intelligence that only a super scientist can have all men call God. 

Again, this isn't really a premise, but a baseless assertion (false premise).  I'm glad I'm not taking a shot for every fallacy here, because I'd certainly not make it far.  Also, I'm going to reword the premise, so I can (hopefully) address it accurately.

Ergo, since it appears that complexity requires an intelligence larger than the complexity (false premise), or requires intelligence at all (false premise), something intelligent must exist.

Plants and bacteria grow in amazingly complex fractal designs, but there's absolutely no reason this can't happen naturally.

Ergo, since people have claimed that something which has been described might exist (fallacy, modified appeal to tradition by way of genetic fallacy), it does so with absolute certainty (fallacy of false cause/dichotomy) and exactly explains my position (argument from ignorance, special pleading, genetic fallacy).

Ergo, (fallacy from special pleading), it can only be my god (false corollary I think), because (fallacy from appeal to emotion) I don't want another god to exist, or I can't imagine another god to exist (argument from ignorance).

I think I've reasonably demonstrated the point therein.  Can you guess what comes next? Luckily, you don't have to, because here it is:

10. God exists. 

Yeah, false premise.  If it can't be demonstrated, it can't be asserted, and so far none of the arguments have done so.

If you've made it this far, congratulations!  Hopefully you're enjoying my posts, but even if you aren't, go ahead and leave a comment or something.  If you do enjoy reading my posts, perhaps consider donating to me via Patreon.  I'd certainly appreciate it.  It can take me an hour or two to type out these posts, when the research is all said and done.  Even if you don't donate, I appreciate you taking the time to read my post!

Have something you want me to debunk?  Let me know!  I might even start doing youtube videos on these kinds of things or something.  What do you folks want to see?  Give me your feedback, and let's have some fun!