Abiogenesis is impossible

[SavedByGraceThruFaith]

The null hypothesis is not always we do not know.

When you're approaching the topic from complete ignorance, yes it is. guessing is just that; guessing. Depending on the topic at hand, there is a statistical probabilty you are 100% correct. However, given the almost infinite chances that you are wrong, the probability is somwhere close to 0%.

Life forms with vast complexity exist. They came into being somehow.

Somehow. I agree.

The vast complexity of life means someone with vast intelligence and power created life, aka God the Creator. That is very much in keeping with scientific observation of intelligent design.

FALSE.

There, you've just done it! You've made an assertion based on nothing but an argument from ignorance fallacy. Congratulations on proving my point.

So the null hypothesis, H0, is that God created all things.

Only if you're insane, Grace. You're not insane, are you?

Don't answer that.

Your hypothesis, H1, is that the vast complexity of life came into being without intelligence, a very radical theory since there is no evidence for it.

P(H1) = 0 or approximately 0 based on simple statistics.

Don't me LOL. 'Simple statistics'?

You're dealing with something that is anything but simple, and casually dismissing it as though someone were asking you to point to the number 1 on a piece of paper that has a large '1' in font size 1000. 'Radical theory'? More or less radical than your particular version of whatever god it is you worship beginning everything? You're making me LOL, Grace. I warned you not to do that.

and, FYI, my null hypothesis is that 'we don't know'. There could well indeed be something that seeded life. I haven't rejected that outright. But I reject your claims based on no evidence aside mere assertions and arguments from ignorance on your part.

Do you get the difference? Probably not. What year in school are you in?

Your null hypothesis is you do not know, not we.

Sorry, simple knowledge is that intelligently designed things are created by an intelligent being.

You are blind.

BTW The use os belittling and name calling proves you do not have any facts sir.

And since YOU do not know, your opinion is rendered useless.

[Psykhronic]

Better luck next time Gracie. You look foolish at the moment.

Or all the time.

[Crossless2.0]

The null hypothesis is not always we do not know.

Life forms with vast complexity exist. They came into being somehow.

The vast complexity of life means someone with vast intelligence and power created life, aka God the Creator. That is very much in keeping with scientific observation of intelligent design.

So the null hypothesis, H0, is that God created all things.

Your hypothesis, H1, is that the vast complexity of life came into being without intelligence, a very radical theory since there is no evidence for it.

P(H1) = 0 or approximately 0 based on simple statistics.

New day, same bullshit.

[max-greece]

"And the beauty of The God Conclusion is that we aren't left wondering why or being forced to invoke "gaps reasoning" by way of words like...mutation, spontaneous, random, dark energy, multiverse, uncertainty principle,."

That is the horror of the story you idiot. We stop questioning and just accept that God did it - all science becomes surplus to requirements and we cease to develop.

Brilliant - now where did I put my dark ages costume?

Oh - and does anyone have a pen - I need to cross out mutation / spontaneous / random / dark energy / mutliverse and the uncertainty principle from my dictionary. Wait - what am I saying - I won't be needing a dictionary now - I won't be needing any words that are not in the Bible.

[Esquilax]

Your null hypothesis is you do not know, not we.

Sorry, simple knowledge is that intelligently designed things are created by an intelligent being.

You are blind.

BTW The use os belittling and name calling proves you do not have any facts sir.

And since YOU do not know, your opinion is rendered useless.

Knowledge is demonstrated, not just asserted. If you want to play it the other way, then fine: I know that you're wrong about this. I know it. It's simple knowledge.

See how that doesn't work, now?

Oh, and if this is so easy for you to prove, so evident, then why not indulge in an actually fair and balanced debate, over in the debate area? Challenge stands, assuming you're willing to play by the rules.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Your null hypothesis is you do not know, not we.

Well, to be fair, I think I've got a better clue than you.

Sorry, simple knowledge is that intelligently designed things are created by an intelligent being.

So, if you're not intelligent, who were you created by?

But srsly, Argument from ignorance. Proof by assertion.

Ignored. But it's good to have you on. Round of applause for Grace, great contestant, great contestant.

You are blind.

You wrote:

"You are blind". I can see. I have disproven your thesis.

Evidence. It's fun when you know how.

BTW The use os belittling and name calling proves you do not have any facts sir.

And since YOU do not know, your opinion is rendered useless.

Oh you said sir! That's right, bow down

Come now, Grace, let's not pretend you have any integrity left here. You've already made yourself into the proverbial punching bag and let everyone have a good go at your midsection. Don't take your gloves away from your face, else it might be a knock out blow.

But, to the matter at hand. When it comes to facts, us telling you what constitutes a null hypothesis and what doesn't is informing you of facts. The null hypothesis you have contructed is something more than nothing to which has no evidence. i.e. a god, where this is no evidence aside mere assertion and belief that a god exists.

That's not a null hypothesis, Grace. You've come from the same initial stance as we have (we don't know), but are pretending both that you do know and that, further, you are 100% correct when you have presented nothing to back up your assertions.

Was there anything else, Grace, are you you just going to keep getting mad? Don't get mad, bro.

[max-greece]

"Your null hypothesis is you do not know, not we."

Our null hypothesis is we do not know - you, however, are a cretin.

[daandaan]

abiogenesis is cracked thanks to the max planck institute that proved the last reaction in the chan of reaction leading up to forming dna.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...647.f03t04

1 the process of hcn polymerisation by uv light from the sun in cold environment is called quantum tunneling ..

the process has an enormous amount of little steps producing lots of other compounds (little steps in between of instable compounds that r falling apart in short time into again other compounds that have a short life so its difficult to detect , but all leading up to the end product)


2 the tests have been done in the past years ...but now by means of computational Chemistry is proven how they lead up to the final end product ..purine..

and purine changes easy into a and g by addition reaction of h and n

pirimidine was already explained years ago (c and t)
-pirimidine sythesis in pre biotic :in concentrated urea solution—such have been found in an evaporating lagoon or in pools on drying beaches on the early Earth—cyanoacetaldehyde reacts to form cytosine in yields of 30-50%, from which uracil can be formed by hydrolysis. These reactions provide a plausible route to the pyrimidine bases required in the RNA world---


and from the XNA experiments we know that nucleotide forming compounds (nucleobase) will form by themselves nucleotides....xna has formed by itself a 6 nucleotide structure.....we, dna have only 4.

so its even more complex as we are


3 however in XNA the atp molecule adenine was missing , so oxygen metabolism wasnt possible ...(xna lives and prospers.and evolves like mad but only in the lab under controlled conditions)

in the past 63 yrs. we have reconstructed the entire process leading up to the forming of nucleotide forming compounds ..and finally we have the last reaction in the chain of reactions cracked..

the ATP molecule adenine for metabolism (and guanine) r proven how they form

so abiogenesis is cracked , article 24 6 2013 MP institute fur kohlenforschung .(link above)

the gazillionth nail in the coffin of ur nonexisting god..

now....how you reconcile reality with the fact that your precious buybull says the sun, moon and stars all dangle under giant body of water in the sky??

see ?? science proves ur god not to exist succesfully.

[What_the?!]

Ok Grace, let's play a little game to see you can be helped to understand your error(s). Please just have a go :-) Lion, maybe you could have a play too? Shit, anyone that can be bothered, please play.

The game is: spot the null hypothesis. Below is a simple everyday situation, followed by several statements. One if them is clearly a null hypothesis, the others are clearly candidate H1s. Let's see what the consensus is:-

SITUATION: your car won't start.

HYPOTHESES:-

A) The battery is flat
B) There is a mechanical fault
C) The cause is as yet unknown
D) The car is out of fuel
E) The car is under a spell from garden pixies

Ok - let's play. Any thoughts?

[max-greece]

Its the pixies - its always the pixies, right?

Little green bastards that they are.