Organic Molecules Found 400 Light Years From Earth

[Succubus]

I'm not asking for certainty, just wondering..for example...between

"played in dirt, uttered cantrip"
and
"organic chemistry"

-which would you lean towards?

The latter.

If you were a creationist and lived prior to the development of modern organic chemistry and you were asked this same question, how would you have replied? Would it be something on the lines of:
 "Err, we are not privy to the workings of god's creation". But now that science has presented a possible, solution, you now embrace the scientific explanation! Does this not strike you as being rather opportunistic and dishonest. How come god made the universe the only way it could work?

[Minimalist]

I'm saying even the simplest cell is really complicated.

Certainly far beyond the imagination of primitive goat herders!

[The Valkyrie]

I'm saying even the simplest cell is really complicated.

Certainly far beyond the imagination of primitive goat herders!

Hey!

Some of them were also camel humpers.

[Amarok]

I'm saying even the simplest  modern cell is really complicated.

There fixed

Uh huh and ?

[rjh4 is back]

The latter.

If you were a creationist and lived prior to the development of modern organic chemistry and you were asked this same question, how would you have replied? Would it be something on the lines of:
 "Err, we are not privy to the workings of god's creation". But now that science has presented a possible, solution, you now embrace the scientific explanation! Does this not strike you as being rather opportunistic and dishonest.

How would I have replied? I don't know.

I was asked which way I leaned between two positions. Don't know if that counts a embracing the scientific explanation. But either way, no I do not see that as being rather opportunistic and dishonest. Why would it be either of those things?

---

I'm saying even the simplest  modern cell is really complicated.

There fixed

Uh huh and ?

It stands fine just the way it was!

[Succubus]

If you were a creationist and lived prior to the development of modern organic chemistry and you were asked this same question, how would you have replied? Would it be something on the lines of:
 "Err, we are not privy to the workings of god's creation". But now that science has presented a possible, solution, you now embrace the scientific explanation! Does this not strike you as being rather opportunistic and dishonest.

How would I have replied? I don't know.

I was asked which way I leaned between two positions. Don't know if that counts a embracing the scientific explanation. But either way, no I do not see that as being rather opportunistic and dishonest. Why would it be either of those things?

---

Are you a creationist?

[rjh4 is back]

I'm saying even the simplest cell is really complicated.

Certainly far beyond the imagination of primitive goat herders!

As well as the imagination of almost everyone prior to the 1660s or so.

---

How would I have replied? I don't know.

I was asked which way I leaned between two positions. Don't know if that counts a embracing the scientific explanation. But either way, no I do not see that as being rather opportunistic and dishonest. Why would it be either of those things?

---

Are you a creationist?

I think that the God of the Bible created the universe. So...yes.

[Succubus]

Certainly far beyond the imagination of primitive goat herders!

As well as the imagination of almost everyone prior to the 1660s or so.

---

Are you a creationist?

I think that the God of the Bible created the universe. So...yes.

So why did he use hideously complex organic chemistry to create life? Why not just poof it into existence, as per your bible?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm really trying to wrap my head around this.  So far as we can tell, chemistry works like so;

-If substance a and substance b are subjected to condition c, then reaction d occurs.

most emphatically -not- like so;

-If substance a and substance b are subjected to condition c, then reaction d occurs...but only if sally is the one mixing them. If john, then reaction e.  If no one, then no reaction.

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.

[rjh4 is back]

As well as the imagination of almost everyone prior to the 1660s or so.

---

I think that the God of the Bible created the universe. So...yes.

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.