(August 14, 2017 at 9:18 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 8:21 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: I am not trying to say that there are different reactions depending on who or what is doing the mixing. I'm saying even the simplest cell is really complicated. To reproduce, many specific materials and conditions must be met. It requires various proteins, DNA, RNA, certain cellular machinery made up of various materials.  Each of the proteins is made up of twenty amino acids that are only in the L form (not D). So the probabilities of the specific sequences needed is along the lines of 1/20 to the nth power where n is the length of the protein. The DNA and RNA are each made of specific sequences of 4 nucleotides or ribonucleotides. So the probabilities of the specific sequences needed is along the lines of 1/4 to the nth power where N is the length of the DNA and RNA respectively.  The lengths of DNA, RNA, and protein sequences are quite long so the denominator gets huge really quickly. Consequently, the probabilities of all those materials and conditions coming together via random mixing of the matter of the universe is extremely small even given billions of years.

So my objection would be a probabilistic one.

How many reactions are happening at once? Are you "computing" your odds serially or in parallel? How many molecules might have been reacting across the surface of the Earth?

If it were only one one molecule interacting with another, then you would sure have a point. But with trillions of molecules going at it, I'd think your numbers would change significantly.

Add to that the presumption that only a very specific chemistry ends in life .

---

Quote:It stands fine just the way it was!

Nope my improvement was better

And repeating  calculation from ID websites does not help you

(August 14, 2017 at 9:25 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 8:59 pm)Succubus Wrote: So why did he use hideously complex organic chemistry to create life? Why not just poof it into existence, as per your bible?

I assume your questions are referring to the creation of man (from the dust only has to do with man)...and...I don't know.

No. The creation of life. Remember, the journey from non life to the first cell, is a far greater journey than from the first cell to man. Once the first self replicating cell appeared natural selection took over, and the rest is history.

(August 14, 2017 at 9:18 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 8:21 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: I am not trying to say that there are different reactions depending on who or what is doing the mixing. I'm saying even the simplest cell is really complicated. To reproduce, many specific materials and conditions must be met. It requires various proteins, DNA, RNA, certain cellular machinery made up of various materials.  Each of the proteins is made up of twenty amino acids that are only in the L form (not D). So the probabilities of the specific sequences needed is along the lines of 1/20 to the nth power where n is the length of the protein. The DNA and RNA are each made of specific sequences of 4 nucleotides or ribonucleotides. So the probabilities of the specific sequences needed is along the lines of 1/4 to the nth power where N is the length of the DNA and RNA respectively.  The lengths of DNA, RNA, and protein sequences are quite long so the denominator gets huge really quickly. Consequently, the probabilities of all those materials and conditions coming together via random mixing of the matter of the universe is extremely small even given billions of years.

So my objection would be a probabilistic one.

How many reactions are happening at once? Are you "computing" your odds serially or in parallel? How many molecules might have been reacting across the surface of the Earth?

If it were only one one molecule interacting with another, then you would sure have a point. But with trillions of molecules going at it, I'd think your numbers would change significantly.

I don't think so. I will do some calculating and provide something for you to look at and check over. It will take a day or so as I don't think I will be able to do it tomorrow.

---

(August 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 9:25 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: I assume your questions are referring to the creation of man (from the dust only has to do with man)...and...I don't know.

No. The creation of life. Remember, the journey from non life to the first cell, is a far greater journey than from the first cell to man. Once the first self replicating cell appeared natural selection took over, and the rest is history.

You seem to be going back and forth between asking based on my worldview and yours. It makes no sense to mix them.

(August 14, 2017 at 10:01 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm)Succubus Wrote: No. The creation of life. Remember, the journey from non life to the first cell, is a far greater journey than from the first cell to man. Once the first self replicating cell appeared natural selection took over, and the rest is history.

You seem to be going back and forth between asking based on my worldview and yours. It makes no sense to mix them.

Then why the fuck do you accept organic chemistry as the method god used! Do I have to find the quote!

(August 14, 2017 at 8:21 pm)rjh4 is back Wrote: I am not trying to say that there are different reactions depending on who or what is doing the mixing. I'm saying even the simplest cell is really complicated.

That's all you could have been saying.  If a specific reactions happens, it doesn't matter whether or not it's life setting it up or any other thing.  Case in point, the reactions that our cells use to create life from non-life don;t work because "they're living cells" - but because thats how the chemistry -itself- works.

Quote:To reproduce, many specific materials and conditions must be met.

Not at all, self replicating molecules, systems, and structures are common - most aren't even alive.

Quote:It requires various proteins, DNA, RNA, certain cellular machinery made up of various materials.  Each of the proteins is made up of twenty amino acids that are only in the L form (not D). So the probabilities of the specific sequences needed is along the lines of 1/20 to the nth power where n is the length of the protein. The DNA and RNA are each made of specific sequences of 4 nucleotides or ribonucleotides. So the probabilities of the specific sequences needed is along the lines of 1/4 to the nth power where N is the length of the DNA and RNA respectively.  The lengths of DNA, RNA, and protein sequences are quite long so the denominator gets huge really quickly. Consequently, the probabilities of all those materials and conditions coming together via random mixing of the matter of the universe is extremely small even given billions of years.

So my objection would be a probabilistic one.

So, not so much difficult, or impossible...and not a supernatural mechanism...or one which requires a specific agent to accomplish.....just an uncommon outcome?  The world is full of uncommon outcomes, isn't it?  Still, I don't see any objection here, to anything proposed by abiogenesis. The proposal is that some as yet unknown combination of chemistry, let's call it x, produced the earliest forms of life.  This is also what you've proposed -while adding a supernatural agent.  By either positions reckoning, it's a fairly uncommon outcome, at least here in earth.

Fun fact, if such a calculation of probability were informative, then it should take me roughly 112 days of 24hour dealing to give myself a royal flush (the odds are 649k to one). How much money would you bet against my dealing that hand sooner? How much money would you bet against anyone getting that hand sooner, if everyone on this board were participating in the fun with their own deck of cards? If I, or any one of us, came to you with a royal flush - would you object to it;s existence by saying

"No, no, I don't believe you could have dealt that, too uncommon an outcome."

(August 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm)Succubus Wrote: Once the first self replicating cell appeared natural selection took over, and the rest is history.

It's entirely possible that natural selection can operate on molecules as well.

(August 14, 2017 at 5:17 pm)Godscreated Wrote:

(August 13, 2017 at 10:57 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: Now it's oppression?  I do thank you that gave me a long hearty chuckle.

Have a blessed day lost one. RAmen
:Fsm-grin:

 You really struggle with conversation that would be considered contributory and educated in this thread.

GC

You're still struggling to string together a cohesive thought.  I'll keep you in my prayers.

RAmen.

(August 14, 2017 at 10:52 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So, not so much difficult, or impossible...and not a supernatural mechanism...or one which requires a specific agent to accomplish.....just an uncommon outcome?  The world is full of uncommon outcomes, isn't it?  Still, I don't see any objection here, to anything proposed by abiogenesis. The proposal is that some as yet unknown combination of chemistry, let's call it x, produced the earliest forms of life.  This is also what you've proposed -while adding a supernatural agent.  By either positions reckoning, it's a fairly uncommon outcome, at least here in earth.

Ok. You have made a good point. So I guess I don't have an objection. Thanks for walking me through your thinking! (It actually saves me time with the probability thing. I don't think I would have been able to do it cogently anyway. One can certainly calculate an amount of possible reactions based on time and numbers of atoms, etc. and one can calculate the probability of say a genome of a replicating organism. The type of calculations one would get from a ID website. I couldn't figure how to incorporate the fact that even within an organism there are variations that still work (certainly a valid criticism of the ID website calculations), i.e., I personally have no idea how to do that or what numbers would be reasonable to assign.)

(August 15, 2017 at 8:55 am)rjh4 is back Wrote:

(August 14, 2017 at 10:52 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So, not so much difficult, or impossible...and not a supernatural mechanism...or one which requires a specific agent to accomplish.....just an uncommon outcome?  The world is full of uncommon outcomes, isn't it?  Still, I don't see any objection here, to anything proposed by abiogenesis. The proposal is that some as yet unknown combination of chemistry, let's call it x, produced the earliest forms of life.  This is also what you've proposed -while adding a supernatural agent.  By either positions reckoning, it's a fairly uncommon outcome, at least here in earth.

Ok. You have made a good point. So I guess I don't have an objection. Thanks for walking me through your thinking! (It actually saves me time with the probability thing. I don't think I would have been able to do it cogently anyway. One can certainly calculate an amount of possible reactions based on time and numbers of atoms, etc. and one can calculate the probability of say a genome of a replicating organism. The type of calculations one would get from a ID website. I couldn't figure how to incorporate the fact that even within an organism there are variations that still work (certainly a valid criticism of the ID website calculations), i.e., I personally have no idea how to do that or what numbers would be reasonable to assign.)

Attempting to debunk parts of evolution DOES NOT point to the Bible. Attempting to co opt the parts of evolution also does not point to the Bible. I am sorry someone sold you that old book of mythology but you don't get to cherry pick science.

Evolution does not point to any holy book, not yours not any. Falsely trying to debunk evolution also does not point to any holy book, not yours not any.

Evolution does not need a super magical cognition to happen just like Thor is not needed to cause lightening. 

Just like there is no gravity deity named "Splat" magically pulling you to the ground.

Those ID websites aren't worth the data-plan you waste looking at them. It's a thoroughly discredited model.