speedyj1992 Wrote:No, it seems as if we have some things in common, some not - I was also skeptical, but I mentioned the events in my life that led me to skepticism more as the premise because I believe that was really what was driving my skepticism. I would encourage you to look up the experiments trying to recreate abiogensis and the numbers behind it (I can't post links here yet) - the realm of what we consider possible is 1/10^50 (1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). I can't post links here right now, otherwise I would provide you with some stuff I've read that I and quite a few others have found to be compelling.
When you calculated the odds, did you take into account the number of opportunities? If I enter a lottery with the odds of 1 in a million, on average I'll win once for every million tickets I buy. If I buy a million tickets, I'm almost certain to win...if the people running the lottery are smart, the ticket price will be over a dollar if the prize is a million dollars.
After it became possible for life as we know it to exist on Earth towards the end of the Hadean eon. Oceans formed about 4.4 billion years ago, the earliest known life forms detected (there are contenders for earlier) existed about 3.48 billion years ago. So several hundred million years after the oceans formed, we get life. Assuming the odds you give are calculated correctly, how many opportunities do you suppose there were, around the world, over several hundred million years, for it to occur. It could easily have been a billion per day; or a trillion per day, or more. Those 50 zeroes don't mean anything if you don't know the number of opportunities there were for it to happen.
As far as experiments go, spontaneous generation of RNA chains of up to 120 nucleotides has been observed in water without enzymes or inorganic catalysts. What are the odds if you start from the knowledge that RNA chains up to 120 nucleotides long are already present?
speedyj1992 Wrote:And I don't see gravity as anything other than an impersonal force. But your claim is that we live in a chaos-driven universe, and right now, we have no current explanation with scientific backing behind it as to how organic matter could've come about within that aforementioned realm of possibility (which is highly liberal) - if, as you put it, organic material hasn't been around since the beginning of time, it must've formed somewhere. Where do you believe that happened, and how, since our current attempts at recreating it aren't working and would require something that isn't within the realm of possibility based on current research?
Repeating the same assertion over and over doesn't make it truer. There is no shortage of natural explanations for abiogenesis, just a shortage of a way to determine which particular explanation is most likely given that the evidence is nearly 4 billion years old, and therefor scarce. We may never know with certainty which abiogenesis scenario is correct, or if it's one we haven't yet thought of. But a requirement of an abiogenesis hypothesis is that it be possible.
I certainly did not 'put it' that organic matter has been around since the beginning of time. Where did you get that idea? Search 'timeline of the universe' on Wikipedia if you want to know when and where various types of matter came into being. The short version is that carbon is formed by the collision of three helium nuclei in the cores of large stars, distributed when they explode. Star formation started occurring about 560 million years after the Initial Expansion, and organic matter (molecules containing carbon) would have existed thereafter.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.