Young Earth,Old Earth Which Is It?

[BABerean2]

The Earth is not a closed system. Because we have so much input energy, entropy is basically irrelevant. The same entropy-based argument that is used to undermine abiogenesis can also be used to argue against mitosis. But we observe mitosis. The reason that entropy doesn't apply to the mitosis argument (and by extension, the abiogenesis argument) is that non-closed systems don't necessarily have abide by the conclusions of entropy. In fact, they are basically guaranteed not to do so.

As to the last bit, there's nothing in physics that prohibits it. After all, if it turns out that we can do it, physical laws must by definition allow it. The probability argument is more reasonable, however.

The question is, what are the conditions necessary to form life in the laboratory? Are they consistent with the conditions believed to be present on the Earth a few billion years ago? If not, is there a place in our solar system that did have those conditions at that time?

If we find consistency, then the probability is really not that low, especially given the time frame, and also the number of solar systems that are likely to have produced those conditions in the universe. If we don't find consistency, then the probability is vanishingly small.

Entropy can never be irrelevant, especially when it comes to energy input.

Excessive heat destroys life and turns the molecules into gases.

...................................................................

jsueafaavmoijafvo[j[fjv[ijf[f[evoijoefji[fj[vji[oejfoj[vji[
qijivm;apevm'm'I[JVMO[JIji[vm]pFG[LPO AMCM Mncn[


...................................................................







Stephen Hawking once used your argument about probability and claimed that a bunch of chimps typing randomly on a typewriter could produce a sonnet if given enough time. Some college students set up the experiment as described by Hawking. After quite some time had passed the chimps had failed to produce even one sentence. Hawking may be a genius, however his claim failed a practical experimental test.

Another huge factor that most ignore is the question of whether or not the RNA molecules contain useful information in the digital code. If the code is random, it will not produce anything living.

Spend some time doing a little research on the Human Genome Project focusing on the amount of information in one human cell.
Yes, I realize we are complex organisms.
However, the idea remains the same. It takes a tremendous amount of information to produce even simple cells.

.

 

[Willtor]

Entropy can never be irrelevant, especially when it comes to energy input.

Excessive heat destroys life and turns the molecules into gases.

It's irrelevant in the sense that it doesn't necessarily increase when the system isn't closed. Additionally, we don't get excessive heat from the Sun, so I'm not entirely sure why that's relevant, either. Are you under the impression we get too much heat? Do you think that the Earth is a closed system that doesn't get energy from the Sun? Where is the disagreement on these points?

Stephen Hawking once used your argument about probability and claimed that a bunch of chimps typing randomly on a typewriter could produce a sonnet if given enough time. Some college students set up the experiment as described by Hawking. After quite some time had passed the chimps had failed to produce even one sentence. Hawking may be a genius, however his claim failed a practical experimental test.

Another huge factor that most ignore is the question of whether or not the RNA molecules contain useful information in the digital code. If the code is random, it will not produce anything living.

Spend some time doing a little research on the Human Genome Project focusing on the amount of information in one human cell.
Yes, I realize we are complex organisms.
However, the idea remains the same. It takes a tremendous amount of information to produce even simple cells.

.

Did you know that one can actually calculate how long it will take to generate a sonnet, given a particular speed of typing and random input? Likewise, if one knows of a particular short RNA sequence that is able to replicate itself, one can calculate how long it will take to generate that sequence given a particular environment. If the environment is conducive, it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. If it isn't conducive, it probably won't.

But it sounds like you dispute probability, too. Is that accurate?

 

[Blue Wren]

Old.

 

[BABerean2]

It's irrelevant in the sense that it doesn't necessarily increase when the system isn't closed. Additionally, we don't get excessive heat from the Sun, so I'm not entirely sure why that's relevant, either. Are you under the impression we get too much heat? Do you think that the Earth is a closed system that doesn't get energy from the Sun? Where is the disagreement on these points?



Did you know that one can actually calculate how long it will take to generate a sonnet, given a particular speed of typing and random input? Likewise, if one knows of a particular short RNA sequence that is able to replicate itself, one can calculate how long it will take to generate that sequence given a particular environment. If the environment is conducive, it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. If it isn't conducive, it probably won't.

But it sounds like you dispute probability, too. Is that accurate?

Apparently, I cannot even spell "probability".

Sometimes it depends on how one looks at probability.

Randomly shuffle a deck of 52 playing cards until all of the suits and cards are in perfect ascending order. You can sit down and calculate the probability, however the probability is so low that it may not happen within a period of trillions of years. Have you ever heard of it happening at any casino where cards are being dealt every day? You may consider it possible. I do not.

You are assuming that the earth just happens to get the correct amount of energy from the sun, as if it just happened. We live in a narrow zone between fire and ice where the conditions exist to make life possible. Asteroid impacts have most certainly blasted rock fragments, which contain bacteria, from the earth. According to the laws of probability, some of these have landed on Mars and Venus. Why did those bacteria not live and evolve into higher life forms on these other planets? Is it theoretically possible? Did it happen?

How long would it take to randomly produce a sonnet with all letters changing at random on each step, instead of generating it sequentially one letter at a time?

With the RNA replication, someone has to purposefully set up the environment to allow it to happen. It does not happen by random chance.

 

[Willtor]

Apparently, I cannot even spell "probability".

Sometimes it depends on how one looks at probability.

Randomly shuffle a deck of 52 playing cards until all of the suits and cards are in perfect ascending order. You can sit down and calculate the probability, however the probability is so low that it may not happen within a period of trillions of years. Have you ever heard of it happening at any casino where cards are being dealt every day? You may consider it possible. I do not.

You are assuming that the earth just happens to get the correct amount of energy from the sun, as if it just happened. We live in a narrow zone between fire and ice where the conditions exist to make life possible. Asteroid impacts have most certainly blasted rock fragments, which contain bacteria, from the earth. According to the laws of probability, some of these have landed on Mars and Venus. Why did those bacteria not live and evolve into higher life forms on these other planets? Is it theoretically possible? Did it happen?

How long would it take to randomly produce a sonnet with all letters changing at random on each step, instead of generating it sequentially one letter at a time?

If a sonnet has about 800 characters, and there are about 60 characters in the alphabet (including capitals, a space, a newline, and punctuation), and each of the characters is equally likely, then the probability for each attempt is 1 in 60^800. If you believed that probability corresponded to reality, you should have believed that the experiment you mentioned would not cause a sonnet to be produced. Probably Stephen Hawking believed that it would not. As you say, he's a genius.

A deck of playing cards has 52! possible orders. A random shuffle will pick 1 of those. Therefore, shuffling the deck has a 1 in 52! chance of coming up sorted. This is more probable than the sonnet because 52! is roughly 8x10^67, whereas 60^800 is some absurd number that makes Google Calculator sad.

For RNA, the shortest self-replicating strand is 48 nucleotides in length, and the alphabet has 4 characters in it (A, C, G, and U). If you have a computer program randomly assembling strings of 48 characters, each attempt has 1 in 4^48 chances of being the target string. 4^48 is roughly 8x10^28. This is nearly 40 orders of magnitude more likely than sorting cards. At this point, it really does come down to the environment and time.

With the RNA replication, someone has to purposefully set up the environment to allow it to happen. It does not happen by random chance.

Okay, so you think that it probably happened naturally, but that the environment was deliberately set up to make it happen? Am I understanding what you've said, rightly?

 

[BABerean2]

If a sonnet has about 800 characters, and there are about 60 characters in the alphabet (including capitals, a space, a newline, and punctuation), and each of the characters is equally likely, then the probability for each attempt is 1 in 60^800. If you believed that probability corresponded to reality, you should have believed that the experiment you mentioned would not cause a sonnet to be produced. Probably Stephen Hawking believed that it would not. As you say, he's a genius.

A deck of playing cards has 52! possible orders. A random shuffle will pick 1 of those. Therefore, shuffling the deck has a 1 in 52! chance of coming up sorted. This is more probable than the sonnet because 52! is roughly 8x10^67, whereas 60^800 is some absurd number that makes Google Calculator sad.

For RNA, the shortest self-replicating strand is 48 nucleotides in length, and the alphabet has 4 characters in it (A, C, G, and U). If you have a computer program randomly assembling strings of 48 characters, each attempt has 1 in 4^48 chances of being the target string. 4^48 is roughly 8x10^28. This is nearly 40 orders of magnitude more likely than sorting cards. At this point, it really does come down to the environment and time.



Okay, so you think that it probably happened naturally, but that the environment was deliberately set up to make it happen? Am I understanding what you've said, rightly?

Do not forget that you are starting with RNA in your example above. You must also factor in the time it would take to produce the RNA from it's constituent atoms by random probability.

If you consider the time it takes to shuffle the cards or key a computer and calculate the age of the universe in seconds you will arrive a the conundrum of the probability issue.

We live in a universe where the laws of physics have been precisely tuned to allow our existence, The fundamental forces of gravitation,(We still do not totally understand how the atom produces gravitation.) electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, if changed by a miniscule factor would cause our very reality to collapse.

This has caused a crisis in Physics among atheist and agnostic scientists who would like to believe they are the most intelligent thing in the universe.
The current theoretical solution is the multiverse theory. In a nutshell, the idea says that there are millions of possible universes and we just got lucky (probability again) enough to be in the one that allows our existence. The only evidence for this this theory is that we are here.

I cannot say exactly how life arrived on this small rocky planet in a universe where even the basic laws of physics are carefully tuned to produce our reality.

However, if you will use your knowledge of probability and add in the factor of time you will understand that the likelihood of it happening by chance within the lifetime of the known universe is zero.

It goes back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You said earlier that matter(energy) is being created all the time. While it is true that subatomic particles pop into existence for a miniscule amount of time and disappear again, if we use accounting principles over a time period of just one second, then the ledger sheet produces zero created matter.

 

[Willtor]

Do not forget that you are starting with RNA in your example above. You must also factor in the time it would take to produce the RNA from it's constituent atoms by random probability.

This is the result of the Miller-Urey experiment. You don't need to start with RNA to run our experiment. Just a lot of amino acids and an environment in which they combine.

If you consider the time it takes to shuffle the cards or key a computer and calculate the age of the universe in seconds you will arrive a the conundrum of the probability issue.

This was the essence of my last post. Coming up with a self-replicating sequence is absurdly more likely than shuffling a deck of cards into order. You're a biologist. Most of what you do is probabilistic modeling.

We live in a universe where the laws of physics have been precisely tuned to allow our existence, The fundamental forces of gravitation,(We still do not totally understand how the atom produces gravitation.) electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces, if changed by a miniscule factor would cause our very reality to collapse.

This has caused a crisis in Physics among atheist and agnostic scientists who would like to believe they are the most intelligent thing in the universe.
The current theoretical solution is the multiverse theory. In a nutshell, the idea says that there are millions of possible universes and we just got lucky (probability again) enough to be in the one that allows our existence. The only evidence for this this theory is that we are here.

I cannot say exactly how life arrived on this small rocky planet in a universe where even the basic laws of physics are carefully tuned to produce our reality.

However, if you will use your knowledge of probability and add in the factor of time you will understand that the likelihood of it happening by chance within the lifetime of the known universe is zero.

It goes back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You said earlier that matter(energy) is being created all the time. While it is true that subatomic particles pop into existence for a miniscule amount of time and disappear again, if we use accounting principles over a time period of just one second, then the ledger sheet produces zero created matter.

The likelihood of it happening by chance in the history of the universe may not be zero. It may be such that it's happened many times. All of that depends on the environmental conditions. Again, this is not like shuffling a deck of cards into order.

 

[miamited]

Hi all,

Just to be clear. If our basis of 'truth' is the science of men, then we are forced to also add the birth or our Lord and Savior to the list of 'untruths' of the Scripture. I know that many say, 'Well, that's a different horse of another color', but...

Fact: The science of man says that the only way a woman can become pregnant is that human sperm enters her egg. To the best of my knowledge there is no other medical or scientific explanation of female pregnancy. I will, of course, be willing to peruse any evidence offered to the contrary.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi all,

Just to be clear. If our basis of 'truth' is the science of men, then we are forced to also add the birth or our Lord and Savior to the list of 'untruths' of the Scripture. I know that many say, 'Well, that's a different horse of another color', but...

Fact: The science of man says that the only way a woman can become pregnant is that human sperm enters her egg. To the best of my knowledge there is no other medical or scientific explanation of female pregnancy. I will, of course, be willing to peruse any evidence offered to the contrary.

God bless you all.
In Christ, Ted

Well, that's a different horse of another color.

 

[miamited]

Hi willtor,

Yes, I hear that a lot. However, let's look at the facts. Men do not believe the simple, straightforward explanation of the Scriptures concerning the creation of this realm because science says that it is impossible.

The explanation given through God's Scriptures concerning the conception of our Lord in the womb of Mary is likewise just as impossible if we use the science of men to explain it.

While the events themselves are different, if we use the science of men to explain either, we have to conclude that both events are impossible. This same reasoning also applies to the parting of the sea, the standing still of the sun, the turning back of the sun's shadow. Each and every one of these events, if we depend on the knowledge of men and science, is impossible.

For the sun to stand still in the sky, either the earth must stop rotating or the sun must temporarily revolve around the earth. For water to stand as a wall on two sides of a pathway unaided, the very laws of fluidity must be abandoned.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Willtor]

Hi willtor,

Yes, I hear that a lot. However, let's look at the facts. Men do not believe the simple, straightforward explanation of the Scriptures concerning the creation of this realm because science says that it is impossible.

The explanation given through God's Scriptures concerning the conception of our Lord in the womb of Mary is likewise just as impossible if we use the science of men to explain it.

While the events themselves are different, if we use the science of men to explain either, we have to conclude that both events are impossible. This same reasoning also applies to the parting of the sea, the standing still of the sun, the turning back of the sun's shadow. Each and every one of these events, if we depend on the knowledge of men and science, is impossible.

For the sun to stand still in the sky, either the earth must stop rotating or the sun must temporarily revolve around the earth. For water to stand as a wall on two sides of a pathway unaided, the very laws of fluidity must be abandoned.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

No, it is not because science says it is impossible. That is a narrow view of science. The question is not whether science "says a thing is possible," but whether people find evidence for it (or, as in many cases, whether people find evidence against it). This is a different argument because it views science, not as an oracle, but as a tool.

Consider the virgin birth: people 2000 years ago knew how babies were made. They didn't know the biochemistry and the stages of development, but they knew that virgins don't give birth to children. In fact, the virgin birth didn't undermine that. It stood in contrast to it. What people knew about making babies was not changed by the virgin birth -- even for the people who believed it! The question, then as it is now, is whether it happened. Was there reason to think one way or the other?

It will be the same with abiogenesis. As with human reproduction, it is likely that people will find that it could have happened naturally, and probably that it has, on multiple occasions. If you say that, in our case, it happened supernaturally, that's a possibility. But arguing that it is impossible by nature is almost certainly folly. Nobody says that, because of the virgin birth, humans cannot reproduce naturally. They pick out a specific instance and say, "that time, it did not happen the usual way."

Again, if you want to say, in our case, life did not appear on Earth, naturally, that is something that science will probably never be able to support or refute. After all, even after they figure out how it works, it doesn't mean that it happened that way in that instance. But, as for me, I see no impetus to argue that it didn't. I have no special knowledge that it didn't. It adds, what I perceive to be, needless complexity: miracles because... reasons. The simpler explanation will be that, in our case, it happened just like it usually happens.

But it is not because "science says" in abiogenesis any more than in the virgin birth. There are other cases where "science says" for forensic reasons. But neither of these examples are that (caveat: it is possible that forensics will one day demonstrate natural abiogenesis on Earth, but today people think the evidence -- one way or the other -- is too small and fragile to survive billions of years).

 

[miamited]

Hi willtor,

I read your post and I understand your position, but the question I always seek to answer in all discussions of the things of God is: Is it the truth.

Why would what people understood 2,000 years ago versus what people understand today have any bearing on the truth? Sure, maybe we can explain some things in more detail and actually see, through microscopic investigation and repeatedable scientific testing, how things happen, but this idea that we are more knowledgeable has absolutely no bearing on the truth. Just our understanding of how some truth may have come about.

I'm just a man of simple child-like faith. Just as a three year old might believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or the Easter bunny because it's what he was told by someone he believes to know the truth, I believe in what God has told me because I believe that He knows the truth. God has laid out for us His simple explanation of His creating this realm in which we exist in six days. He then defined each day as consisting of a morning and an evening and He caused this explanation to be repeated at least twice more several hundred years after the fact. I believe that God has given me ample evidence by which I might understand that God did create this realm in six days.

He further has explained to me 'why' He created this realm in which I live. He created it for a place for man to live and He was fully aware of what man would do with all that He created and His purpose was that one day He would cull from all of mankind a body of human beings that would love, honor and cherish Him as God.

When I understand the why of His creating, that it was for a specific purpose of His, then I have no problem understanding that He did it all in six days. He is God and He created this realm because one day He knew He would be able to draw from the well of mankind a 'priesthood', as the Scriptures call the body of those who have believed and been born again. A 'society' if you will of people who will be given eternal life with Him because they have believed and trusted and loved Him.

It's really quite simple when one understands the whole of the Scriptures. They tell us that this Jesus existed before the foundations of the world were set in place and that his life would be given as a sacrifice for the sins of man. So, it seems obvious to me that God knew that man would sin before He spoke the first, 'Let there be...' that began the building of this realm. He knew that He would have to provide the acceptable sacrifice for the sins of men before He spoke those words. But He also knew that there would be, among mankind, some who would believe Him and trust Him and love Him. For those He made a promise. In the end, I will take you to be with me and the full purpose of my creating this realm will be realized.

It's a simple faith. Based on a solid foundation that God has told me the truth. Men? Not so much. I really don't care what abiogenesis tells me. I really don't care what carbon dating and fossil science tells me. I know that all of that comes from the wisdom of man through his study of the natural properties of the creation. It is based on simple extrapolation that if such and such is true today, then it must have always been so.

I firmly believe that some 7 to 8 thousand years ago there was not a single star in all of the universe. There was no planet hanging in that universe called 'earth'. There was just empty black 'space'. Nothingness, if you will. Into that vast expanse without light or microns or cells or protons or even the single smallest microscopic or nanoscopic particle, God said, "Let there be light!", and this realm in which we now live became. He then, over the next six days, built this realm into what we see with our eyes today. He created the earth and then flung the millions of stars and other heavenly bodies across the expanse of the space of nothingness and built a realm, an existence, for a cherished and prized creature that He would create - called man.

He created man to share with Him and love Him and trust Him for his life just as He did when He built the angelic realm. God has now built two realms of life each supporting the life of a different creature of His design for His pleasure. But neither realm is yet finished. In the day of God's judgment, He will judge both men and angels, and then He will have accomplished what He set out to accomplish in all of His creating. In that day, just as the heavens were rolled out like a scroll, they will similarly be rolled up like a scroll. All by the power and majesty of the one who created all of it.

That's what I believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[BABerean2]

This is the result of the Miller-Urey experiment. You don't need to start with RNA to run our experiment. Just a lot of amino acids and an environment in which they combine.



This was the essence of my last post. Coming up with a self-replicating sequence is absurdly more likely than shuffling a deck of cards into order. You're a biologist. Most of what you do is probabilistic modeling.



The likelihood of it happening by chance in the history of the universe may not be zero. It may be such that it's happened many times. All of that depends on the environmental conditions. Again, this is not like shuffling a deck of cards into order.

So far in our discussion you have used logic which seems to ignore many of the factors (such as time) involved in the process, in order to arrive at your present conclusion.

If it is as simple as you claim, gather together some of your friends who have a science background (or make some new friends, who do) and get started with the simple experimental sequence that you have proposed.

I look forward to seeing your name in the list of Nobel Prize winners.

 

[Willtor]

That's your prerogative. The point is that what you said in your previous post was based on a misunderstanding of what people have been saying to you. And I know that you wouldn't want to misrepresent peoples' arguments.

 

[Willtor]

So far in our discussion you have used logic which seems to ignore many of the factors (such as time) involved in the process, in order to arrive at your present conclusion.

If it is as simple as you claim, gather together some of your friends who have a science background (or make some new friends, who do) and get started with the simple experimental sequence that you have proposed.

I look forward to seeing your name in the list of Nobel Prize winners.

Again, I'm not a biologist. I'm not sure why you are fixated on me.

Also, I don't understand why you think that this is something that would be likely to happen within a human lifetime (or a thousand). Was I unclear on something?

 

[FrozenOne]

If you don't believe in creation, do you have a need for Christ? This was Jesus' point, using an ancient form of argument in speaking to the Sanhedrin in John 5. The members of the Sanhedrin knew that an appeal to Moses was an appeal to the creation story.

John 5 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.

46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.

47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

 

[Doveaman]

Now you are sounding like dad..

I'm sure I sound like AV too, and everyone else who reads Genesis literally.

The theories may differ as long as the Genesis account isn't changed.

Dadology can take a hike,as well as accepting Genesis with religious blinders on.

Any time you have to chop and change the Genesis account to fit the science, the science can take a hike.

The Genesis account is history. You cannot change history.

 

[Willtor]

If you don't believe in creation, do you have a need for Christ?

...

This is not it, though. Theistic evolutionists accept that God is the Creator and Lord of nature. Speaking for myself, at any rate, I believe Genesis.

 

[Saricharity]

.

 

[SkyWriting]

That presupposes a deliberately chronological timeline. But that is not necessarily true of ancient genealogies, which often had quite a different purpose.

Thanks! That's what I keep trying to tell people.
The fact that various well-intentioned scholars have
come to different "exact" numbers indicates that math
is not the purpose for including the genealogies.