Jump to content
Science Forums

Abiogenesis anyone?


IrishEyes
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

If you want to know the incredible mystery that produced Em and Jen, take a look at that fantastic woman you married, and remember that out of every other guy in Norway, and half the population of Virginia, she chose YOU. Now THAT, my friend, is a mystery worth pondering.

A MIRACLE!

There IS a god! :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Wiz, I hear of these horrible odds for abiogenesis quite a bit,... please tell me the odds of your god creating life. For some reason the creationists don't like odds so much when they need them to prove an assertion. The tables are turned and the ball is in your court.

the probability is much higher for creation,look around through your whole life and determine for yourself what all we have that was created in some way and then determine how much came from nothing, there's the probability as simply as can be stated, i would like to see how many things can be named that come from nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: wisdumn it's quite clear that abiogenesis is an important part of evolution, it's the foundation(unless you want to go back to the BB) abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible by using odds:

Is the cat dead or alive?
depending on what you're talking about, what do you mean by cat?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: wisdumn

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin

Wiz, I hear of these horrible odds for abiogenesis quite a bit,... please tell me the odds of your god creating life. For some reason the creationists don't like odds so much when they need them to prove an assertion. The tables are turned and the ball is in your court.

the probability is much higher for creation,look around through your whole life and determine for yourself what all we have that was created in some way and then determine how much came from nothing, there's the probability as simply as can be stated, i would like to see how many things can be named that come from nothing.

What is this???? Again,..... no answer. Creationists use the mathematical probability of abiogenesis all the time to try to support their position. They use exact figures,... that are rarely correct or the same. Why can't you give me the exact mathematical probability of the existence of your god and his creating life?

 

One simple question! Answer it or tell us you can't! PLEASE,... no more stalling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: wisdumn

look around through your whole life and determine for yourself what all we have that was created in some way and then determine how much came from nothing, there's the probability as simply as can be stated, i would like to see how many things can be named that come from nothing.

So what are you arguing here?

 

Creation IS

 

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

that your god created everything from NOTHING!

 

Thus the discussion is NOT "how many things can be named that come from nothing".

 

You are using the exact same claim. Something from nothing.

 

The ONLY difference is that you want to claim that the exact same end result, lots of somethings from nothing, is better explained by inventing an additional agent. One that you fail to provide even the first valid evidence of.

 

Such as the very direct and specific request, which has been repeated over and over, to PROVE that your biblical man/god, Jesus, actually existed based on contemporary eyewitness reports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, but this thread is about abiogenesis, i simply stated the probability from a scientific stance of the odds abiogenesis took place, this is not a thread to discuss creation but i guess that's what happens when people claim towant scientific information and evidence, but yet when it's put in their face they flip out because now they've gotten just what they asked for. i answered irish's original question because she wanted to know more about abiogenesis, if you two gents want to discuss creation well, unfortunately the 2 threads we had for it have been closed, so when another thread about creation comes up then we'll discuss it. i'm amazed though when you get the facts mathematically in your face from actual scientific investigation, you would still rather believe that something like this can take place. appears to me the evidence is very strongly weighed against abiogenesis, but hey, at least you're both starting to learn what faith is, even if your faith is in a puddle of dead goo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: GAHD

I still find it sad that the topic seems to be revolving around abiogenisis occuring on Earth.

 

i mean hey, i think the whole idea is nonsense butat least i stuck to what the thread was about

 

 

hey FT and unc. M - since the thread is about abiogenesis, why don't you provide some scientific evidence that factually supports abiogenesis, i gave evidence thatshows a lack ofsupport forit so surely that isn't too hard of a task if the two of you work together as a team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: wisdumn

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Originally posted by: wisdumn it's quite clear that abiogenesis is an important part of evolution, it's the foundation(unless you want to go back to the BB) abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible by using odds:

Is the cat dead or alive?
depending on what you're talking about, what do you mean by cat?
I see Unc had no trouble understanding it.

 

If you want to pretend to know about physics and probability, I suggest you find out. Otherwise you just expose your ignorance.

 

Remember Ignorance can be cured by gaining knowlege. Stupid is forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by: GAHD

I still find it sad that the topic seems to be revolving around abiogenisis occuring on Earth.

OK, fine, let's move it beyond that.

 

I remember reading about some propositions regarding extra-terrestrial elements bonding with earth materials. Can't remember the source right now. Will have to see if I can find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

09/02/2004 10:01 AM

Originally posted by: wisdumn

sorry, but this thread is about abiogenesis, i simply stated the probability from a scientific stance of the odds abiogenesis took place, this is not a thread to discuss creation

09/01/2004 07:41 PM

Originally posted by: wisdumn

the probability is much higher for creation,look around through your whole life ....

Your a hoot! After your jumping into a discussion of Creation and this thread, and being challenged to prove it's probability is greater than Abiogenesis, not being able to do so, you want to claim to not be involved in it's discussion!

but i guess that's what happens when people claim to want scientific information and evidence,

And ask for it over and over from Creationists who don;t have any...

i'm amazed though when you get the facts mathematically in your face from actual scientific investigation,

Which mathematical FACTS are those? Your arbitrarily assigned probability numbers?

 

Study statistics. Study Uncertainty and it's connection to Probability. (e.g. the cat).

 

Out of the billions of shirts that do or have existed, the probability of me wearing the one I am is 100%. Not one out of billions.

 

Over an infinite period of time (or are you going to say that you don't accept infinity?) an infinity number of things will happen an infinite number of times.

you would still rather believe that something like this can take place. appears to me the evidence is very strongly weighed against abiogenesis,

Show us ANY evidence, not PROBABLE evidence, but FACTUAL evidence.

but hey, at least you're both starting to learn what faith is,

Oh, I KNOW what "faith" is. It is what you use when you don't have any FACTUAL reasons to accept something. As in Christianity being a faith based philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, here's the deal, you knuckleheads.........KNOCK IT OFF!!

 

wisdumn, this is NOT a creationist thread. It is NOT a thread in which God will be discussed. It is NOT a thread that will turn into a creation vs. abiogenesis (or evolution) debate. NOT NOT NOT!!!

 

FT, this is NOT a creationist bashing thread. It is NOT a thread in which God will be discussed. It is NOT a thread that will turn into a science vs. religion debate. NOT NOT NOT!!!

 

If anyone else wants to stick around and add your personal opinions about abiogenesis, or support someone else's opinion with some facts, PLEASE DO SO. Otherwise, you guys can all go stick your hot heads in a cooler for a bit or pick another topic to carry on in. NOT THIS ONE!

 

Other than MY mistake about trying to keep the definition of life out of the topic, I've had a really great time learning about some of your views, and why you hold those views. Don't spoil my thread for me now. My kids have learned some new things, and are still pouring over the info Tele was kind enough to post. Gahd, your info was very fascinating as well, thanks so much for that. I'm interested to hear about your theories regarding abiogenesis someplace OTHER THAN this planet. Care to share???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very sorry Irish to take this where you wish it would not go,... however,... Wisdumn has told us all of the mathematical improbability of abiogenesis occurring. I (and others) have asked him for the mathematical probability of his creation assertion,.... and am (are) anxiously awaiting those figures. This IS VERY MUCH ON TOPIC!!!!! When someone rejects an assertion,.... it is expected they will offer evidence that invalidates the assertion,... or offer a theory that is better,..... again,..... with evidence.

 

 

ALL WE WANT is these magical numbers that prove the probability of creation is more likely than abiogenesis!!!! How difficult can that be for Da Wiz,... whom has categorically denied abiogenesis and touted creation as fact based on his OWN probabilities. That he refuses to share with us no less!!!!

 

GIVE US THE NUMBERS, then we can move on.

 

Wiz?.... Please tell us the numbers??? What is the probability of creation? 1 in What??????? 1? A 1000? A million? Do you U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D the Q-U-E-S-T-I-O-N ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wisdumn: abiogenesis has been proven to be impossible by using odds:

 

False. But I'll wait to explain why until after I address a few other problems with your post.

 

Wisdumn: the simplest form of life should have at least 600 different protein molecules.

 

Wrong. A scientist (Craig Venter?) did work on the minimal genome and determined that the simplest unicellar organism (Mycoplasma genitalium?) could get by with just 300 or so proteins.

 

Wisdumn: the mathematical probability that * just one * molecule could form by chance arrangements of the correct sequence of amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^450

 

Says who? It has been found that approximately 60% of binary amino acid sequences (chains of alternating hydrophobic/hydrophilic amino acids) fold into stable conformations (that's off the top of my head...if asked, I could look it up). And even Fox's proteinoid microspheres - random amino acid sequences that don't even qualify as proteins - were have weak catalytic functionality.

 

Wisdumn: mathematicians generally agree that, statistically any odds beyond 1 in 10^50 have a zero probability of ever happening(and that's giving the benefit of the doubt) (some ref. from borel's law)

 

Completely false. Lay people may say that, but not mathematicians. They state that only events with probability = 0 are impossible, and can easily show the Borel's claim to be false.

 

What you are refering to is a value Emil Borel whipped up with no real justification. Why is 1 in 10^50 the cutoff probability? Why not 10^60, or 1 in 10^75? He gave no legitimate justification and none can be provided. And in fact, William Dembski - and IDist who rejects a naturalistic origin of life - has extended the universal probability bound to 1 in 10^150. Even though he gives justifications for his value, even his 'theory' is largely rejected.

 

Finally, I can prove that Emil Borel - and your statement based on his outdated thoughts - is wrong. Get a fair coin. You are going to flip it 167 times and record the order of heads and tails you get. Now, what is the probability that the particular ordered sequence of heads and tails you will end up would occur? Same as any other of the possible outcomes...1 in 2^167 = 1 in 1.87 x 10^50. Yet one of those highly improbable outcomes, with probability less than 1 in 10^50, will in fact occur. Emil Borel is busted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...