Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[TheManeki]

Even if you provided the basis of your error bars, and you didn't, this isn't the sort of statistical problem in which error bars are relevant. You're right that my assumptions have no basis in reality--that's the whole point of this exercise. Reality is much worse for abiogenesis at every level.

It's amusing that you're making an issue over the basis of my error bars, while ignoring how flawed your calculations are.

I sense you're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel in this discussion.

 

[True_Blue]

It's amusing that you're making an issue over the basis of my error bars, while ignoring how flawed your calculations are.

I sense you're starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel in this discussion.

Dude, error bars require data and a measurement of uncertainty. For example, I assume an optimistic 50% chance per interaction and 50k units. You can't assign uncertainties to those assumptions without data. I'm very familiar with that process. Again, I invite you to make your own assumptions and crunch your own numbers.

 

[TheManeki]

Dude, error bars require data and a measurement of uncertainty. For example, I assume an optimistic 50% chance per interaction and 50k units. You can't assign uncertainties to those assumptions without data. I'm very familiar with that process.

The so-called data from the OP are based on assumptions pulled from the same smelly orifice as my metaphorical error bars. It's hilarious that you didn't recognize the odor wafting from the OP.

You can beat this dead horse as much as you wish, but the only point you're making is that you have a lot to learn about chemistry.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Dude, I'm attempting to communice basic principles using informal heuristics, not get an A on some insignificant biochemistry exam. I can draw on any analogy I please if it communicates a concept better.

Why is it always the people with the least demonstrable grasp of a field who decree education or exams in that field to be "insignificant" or somehow meaningless?

Why do people with advanced degrees in a subject have to be subjected to people who don't have advanced degrees in that subject telling them how "meaningless" that education is?

Why?

True-Blue, do you think you could pass a biochem exam? Based on your "explanations" of the chemistry here in this thread I should think you'd have a tough time. I had a tough time in biochem and I still scored in the top of the class when I took it. I don't think I'd call a biochem exam "insignificant" when talking to a biochem major. Them's some fine cojones there.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That's why they can never hope to find even a simple sugar on Mars .

Then please explain THIS:

Scientists have discovered sugars in a meteorite, adding to the list of complex organic molecules that have been found inside space rocks.(SOURCE)​

​

 

[True_Blue]

Why is it always the people with the least demonstrable grasp of a field who decree education or exams in that field to be "insignificant" or somehow meaningless?

Why do people with advanced degrees in a subject have to be subjected to people who don't have advanced degrees in that subject telling them how "meaningless" that education is?

Why?

True-Blue, do you think you could pass a biochem exam? Based on your "explanations" of the chemistry here in this thread I should think you'd have a tough time. I had a tough time in biochem and I still scored in the top of the class when I took it. I don't think I'd call a biochem exam "insignificant" when talking to a biochem major. Them's some fine cojones there.

Nowadays I would have great difficulty passing a biochem exam--no question about it. Biochemistry exams use the same part of the brain as learning Chinese--abstract names attached to abstract symbols.

However, I have supreme confidence the analysis I've provided and how I have applied it. Interestingly, there are errors in my analysis, but none of you guys have picked up on them yet. Hehe! And I posted notwithstanding the errors because the errors aren't material.

I have 12 years of university under my belt, and I've definitely come to the conclusion that university isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm still less educated than many non-college educated people.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Even if you provided the basis of your error bars, and you didn't, this isn't the sort of statistical problem in which error bars are relevant.

Sounds like someone has as good a grasp on statistics as they do on chemistry!

Here's a dose of reality. For abiogenesis to even have a prayer of working, a materially non-oxygen atmosphere is required, as with H2, CH4 and NH3 in Stanley Miller's experiment. Disregarding the fact that H2, and perhaps CH4 and NH3 as well, might dissipate into space given Earth's gravity, as well as prehistoric surface temperature, volcanos are not the source of such gases, as evolutionists practically have to believe. Here's a link to the percentages and types of gases emitted by representative volcanos. Note the really high composition of oxygen in those gases. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html.

So are you saying the early earth didn't have a more reducing atmosphere?

Then why not explain Banded Iron Formations:

Iron (Fe) is a very abundant element in the earth's crust so much is released by the chemical disintegration of minerals contained in rocks. Fe++ is slightly soluble in seawater while Fe+++ is insoluble (Figure 6). During the time when the earth had a reducing atmosphere Fe++ should have accumulated as dissolved ions in seawater. However at some point the oxygen build-up in the ocean from prokaryote photosynthesis should have oxidized the Fe++ to Fe+++ resulting in the precipitation of insoluble iron compounds. Are such ancient iron rich compounds preserved? Yes there are, in fact the bulk of the iron ore mined to produce steel comes from iron deposits that are about two billion years old (Figure 7). Such deposits are found on all continents and all look much the same (Figure 8). They are reddish and have clearly visible bands hence they are called Banded Iron Formations. The Messabi range of Minnesota is an example of such a deposit. It was for much of US history the primary source of iron ore for the steel mills of Pittsburg, Pennsylvania and Gary, Indiana. If we know the mass of these banded iron formations and the rate at which we mine them we can calculate their residence time and determine how long they will last, or when we will run out of this kind of iron ore (Figure 9).

A second line of evidence, to suggest that the early earth had a reducing atmosphere like Venus and Mars, is the presence of detrital (formed from the products of erosion of pre-existing rocks) pyrite in sedimentary deposits older than two billion years old. Iron pyrite forms in reducing environment and is quickly chemically decomposed in the presence of oxygen. Today such minerals are only preserved in rocks that formed in reducing environments such as swamps etc. However, in rocks older than two billion years old this mineral (iron pyrite) is found in rocks that were probably formed in streambeds (SOURCE)

Just curious how you would deal with the chemistry here.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Nowadays I would have great difficulty passing a biochem exam--no question about it. Biochemistry exams use the same part of the brain as learning Chinese--abstract names attached to abstract symbols.

Did you ever take a biochem class?

However, I have supreme confidence the analysis I've provided and how I have applied it. Interestingly, there are errors in my analysis, but none of you guys have picked up on them yet. Hehe! And I posted notwithstanding the errors because the errors aren't material.

I think we're too overwhelmed by your massive oversimplifications of chemistry to notice the others.

I have 12 years of university under my belt, and I've definitely come to the conclusion that university isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm still less educated than many non-college educated people.

I love that line of reasoning. I too have 12 years of university under my belt. I have it in the physical sciences (geochemistry).

If you think university education isn't worth much, then I have to wonder what you got out of the experience. I don't think the only path to knoweldge is through college education, but I sure don't think I'd have the cojones to tell someone whose field I don't understand that their training is somehow meaningless.

That's pretty impressive. Especially when one realizes how little of the chemistry you appear to understand.

 

[Naraoia]

Too long post... part one:

I believe life is the product of intelligent design, not random chance.

I believe life is the product of probabilistic processes whose outcomes aren't uniformly distributed. Now that we're done with the introductions...

There are irreconcilable problems with evolution at every discrete stage, from Big Bang to the development of the human brain.

I wonder how many of your "discrete stages" actually have anything to do with evolution. Or how many of those problems are irreconcilable (or even problems).

In my personal view, the most compelling evidence against evolution is the low probability of the first cell evolving from chance (abiogenesis).

Waaaait, so the most compelling evidence against me walking home at 6 pm is that I probably hadn't started from the grocery store. How does this logic work?

Also, (1) the first cell didn't have to evolve "from chance" but from chances heavily skewed by chemistry; (2) no supporter of abiogenesis (that I know of) thinks that the origin of the first cell was a one-step process. (A fully formed cell suddenly self-assembling out of the primordial soup is something even we wouldn't call plausible)

It’s so damaging that there should be countless articles on the topic and whole research centers devoted to it, and yet there is not.

Why would whole research centres be devoted to a stupid question? As for abiogenesis (the ideas more realistic than your cell-by-chance, that is), there does seem to be plenty of research going on. One of the latest examples (and a quite cool one) is Jack Szostak et al's lipid-and-DNA "cells".

The Institute of Creation Research estimated the probability as 1 / (1*10^4,478,296).

The probability of what?

Evolutionists have tried to rebut ICR’s study by making de minimis assumptions without running the resulting numbers. For example, Dr. Frank Drake simply put the probability at 100% and moved on.

Strictly speaking he is wrong - the probability would be 100% only if we knew it happened. Which is a bit difficult given that we're likely talking about more than 4 billion years ago.

In this study, I adopt every reasonable assumption an evolutionist could make that I am aware of, and run the model to calculate the probability.

Let's see.

My result is that the probability of a single cell evolving under extremely favorable assumptions is less than 1 / (1*10^7500), making evolution impossible under reasonably and unreasonably conceivable circumstances. If there are only three possibilities for the origin of life—chance, aliens, and God, this study removes 2 of the 3 possibilities and proves the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, there are more than three possibilities. You've left out chemistry. Which is chance (insofar as quantum mechanics is), but I doubt it's chance in the way you mean it.

 

[True_Blue]

So are you saying the early earth didn't have a more reducing atmosphere?

Then why not explain Banded Iron Formations:

Just curious how you would deal with the chemistry here.

Given that my goal is to persuade you against atheism, I certainly cannot do so on the basis of geochemistry, given the imbalance of our education in that particular field. In my first post in this thread, I provided this link: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs074.html. Given your education, I'm interested in your personal, independent analysis (no vitriol or scorn please) of the article.

I do know enough about geochemistry to know that volcanoes (at least the ones that mankind has actual experience with) are spewing out mostly oxygen, and therefore volcanoes are a poor source of a purported substantial non-oxygen atmosphere. In some articles I've read by folks on your side, abiogenesis is itself cited as a reason for a non-oxygen atmosphere. I'm sure this line of reasoning has been considered by evolutionists, and it will be interesting see how the third- and fourth-order iterations of this debate unfold. I also urge you to be humble. It's okay to admit when science doesn't know certain things: "The history of the Earth's atmosphere prior to one billion years ago is poorly understood and an active area of scientific research." Source

These sorts of debates are very similar to debates I engage in regarding law. As with science, there are absolute truths in the law as well. Those on the wrong side of the argument have to make more and more obtuse assumptions, and at the edges, at least in my perspective, the argument collapses under the weight of numerous adverse assumptions and inconsistencies. To my knowledge, the only "inconsistency" on my side is trying to reason how God himself could come into existence. I can't explain that, but I'm not bothered with it particularly much because I'm only human.

 

[Vene]

Given that my goal is to persuade you against atheism, I certainly cannot do so on the basis of geochemistry, given the imbalance of our education in that particular field.

So, would you try with somebody that doesn't know geochemistry?

As with science, there are absolute truths in the law as well.

There are absolute truths in science? That's news to me. Can you enlighten me as to what these absolute truths are?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Given that my goal is to persuade you against atheism, I certainly cannot do so on the basis of geochemistry,

Oh, so this is a debate against atheism? I thought we were discussing the evidence for a reducing atmosphere on the early earth. My bad.

given the imbalance of our education in that particular field. In my first post in this thread, I provided this link: http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs074.html. Given your education, I'm interested in your personal, independent analysis (no vitriol or scorn please) of the article.

Kudos to the folks at BiblicalCreation.org for using actual scientific sources. I am unfamiliar with Ohmoto's work on this, but what jumps out at me is that this isn't necessarily a means by which the idea of abiogenesis a la Miller and Urey is killed off completely. Note that in the "middle case" of a "Neutral" atmosphere this "results in severely impoverished reaction products..." So indeed we still have the opportunity and a significant block of time.

And Ohmoto's analyses were on the paleosols themselves. But the existance of extensive banded iron formations is still hard to parse without significant mobilization of Fe2+. Some of these deposits are quite large. The deposits in Minnesota have provided an industry for about a century. And this isn't the only deposit like this.

The only analogue we have of this kind of deposit today occurs in the bottom of anoxic swamps, "bog ore".

So the key is not merely to assess the relative depletion of Fe in a paleosol, but to try to figure out how so much Fe could be mobilized and form these "BIF"s.

But further, just looking around at the rest of the solar system indicates what our early atmosphere may have been like. And a 2005 study of offgassing of chondrites yielded reason to believe an early earth would have had plenty of reducing gases to its benefit (LINK)

In addition, there seems to be reason to believe that life may have already had a toe-hold by as early as 3.5 billion years

However it happened, we are fairly sure it happened early in Earth's history because fossil carbon in 3.7 billion year old rocks and stromatolites from about the same time have the tell-tale signs of life.

By 3.5 billion years ago there was life, certainly with the full compliment of the basic genetic system - with DNA and RNA. (SOURCE)

(Hey, I used to work at Lamont Doherty! Long ago as a lab tech! Woo hoo!)


I don't want to belabor this point too much since this was never my area of expertise, even when I was in economic geology class. But it is hard to write off

I do know enough about geochemistry to know that volcanoes (at least the ones that mankind has actual experience with) are spewing out mostly oxygen

The US Geological Survey would beg to differ:

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor (H20), followed by carbon dioxide (C02) and sulfur dioxide (S02). Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).
(SOURCE)

While indeed there are oxidized materials in there, oxygen does not appear to be the primary component.

, and therefore volcanoes are a poor source of a purported substantial non-oxygen atmosphere.

Please refer to the earlier linkage (HERE). Assemble a planet from chondritic meteors and you apparently have plenty of reducing gases to support the hypothesis of an early reducing atmosphere.

In some articles I've read by folks on your side, abiogenesis is itself cited as a reason for a non-oxygen atmosphere.[/qutoe]

I've not seen that. I have, however, seen the rise of photosynthesizing algal materials as a source of the "Oxygen Holocaust" and a significant rise in oxygen in the atmosphere.

I also urge you to be humble.

I would ask the same of you, but after you told the biochem major about the "insiginficance" of tests in biochemistry which you are clearly not an expert on, I think I'll settle for suggesting you re-read Luke 6:31

It's okay to admit when science doesn't know certain things: "The history of the Earth's atmosphere prior to one billion years ago is poorly understood and an active area of scientific research."

And I will gladly acquiesce to that point. In a heart beat. It is part and parcel of being a scientist.

These sorts of debates are very similar to debates I engage in regarding law. As with science, there are absolute truths in the law as well.

Are there absolute truths in science? Hmmmm.

Those on the wrong side of the argument have to make more and more obtuse assumptions, and at the edges, at least in my perspective, the argument collapses under the weight of numerous adverse assumptions and inconsistencies.

But the argument can also collapse when the person espousing the point fails to understand the details of said point.

To my knowledge, the only "inconsistency" on my side is trying to reason how God himself could come into existence. I can't explain that, but I'm not bothered with it particularly much because I'm only human.

Nor do you have to bother with that. In this case we are discussing chemistry. God has no necessary role in explaining the chemistry. That's why science is silent on God, but cannot utilize the "God Hypothesis" to explain the system. The models that describe the physical systems seem to work quite well without resort to the supernatural.

 

[atomweaver]

Here's a dose of reality. For abiogenesis to even have a prayer of working, a materially non-oxygen atmosphere is required, as with H2, CH4 and NH3 in Stanley Miller's experiment. Disregarding the fact that H2, and perhaps CH4 and NH3 as well, might dissipate into space given Earth's gravity, as well as prehistoric surface temperature, volcanos are not the source of such gases, as evolutionists practically have to believe. Here's a link to the percentages and types of gases emitted by representative volcanos. Note the really high composition of oxygen in those gases. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html.

Here is why you actually need to take a high school chemistry course, again. There is no molecular oxygen cited at all at that link that you provided.
I can only assume that you saw the atomic oxygen included in volcanic gasses like CO2, SO2, and CO, and said "Aha! Oxygen!! The ancient atmosphere must therefore have been oxidative!!!". Thus, your ignorance of chemistry causes your analysis to fall flat from the off...

And so we get back to your fundamental stumbling block. As with your exercise in statistical nonsense, you're treating all combinations of atoms (parts) as equivalent, when nothing could be further from the truth. If the oxygen contained in those molecules behaves the same as good old O2, then kindly prove it to all of us by grabbing an SCBA cylinder full of sulfur dioxide, and trying to breathe the stuff.


Oxygen (O2) is not an output gas of volcanoes. In order for the prebiotic earth's atmosphere to be oxidative, it would need molecular oxygen, O2, and a lot of it. The link you provided amply demonstrates that such gas was not provided by volcanoes...

Gadzooks, you don't go into the labs of your own company, do you True Blue..? For goodness sake, be careful! If you dared apply any of these chemistry assumptions of yours in a real world industrial setting, you'd be dead in a month or less.

 

[Naraoia]

Part two.

Favorable Assumptions

In this study, I make extremely favorable assumptions in favor of evolution. I assume perfect unities of time and space—perhaps a single infinitesimally small spec where all these pieces of something intermingle at lightning speed. It does no good for half a life form to coalesce when the other half is 5 feet away.

The irreducible complexity argument? Oh no. Possibly the most rubbish argument for design ever.

TalkOrigins added fictitious bacteria precursors called "replicating polymers," "hypercycles," and "protobionts" to give more intermediate steps between random and a self-sufficient cell.

Not fictitious. Hypothetical. Each of those things are plausible, and far more so than a bacterium popping out of the prebiotic goo (and replicating polymers exist, if you've actually read the TO article).

I have added 15 intermediate steps to make it easier for evolution.

Evolution thanks you, although we're only talking about evolution after the first replicator.

Also, the smallest discovered cell (phytoplasma) is comprised of about 33 billion atoms. NASA’s smallest theoretically conceivable exobiological cell would have about 260 million atoms ((6.022E23 atoms/mole) * (1 mole/ 18 grams of H2O) * (1 gram/cm^3) * (.00002 cm)^3 = 267,644,444 H2O molecules per bacteria).

This is where your reasoning's starting to look incredibly fishy. Why are you counting atoms? (And how has NASA estimated what would be needed for the smallest theoretically possible cell? I wouldn't bet on these estimates. After all, Lenski et al also estimated that the shortest possible EQU function would be 19 instructions long - and evolution proved them wrong.

Furthermore, you still haven't explained why you are talking about cells. I'd be extremely surprised if the first cells hadn't had a long-long history behind them.

To be phenomenally generous, I’ve reduce the number of atoms, or parts, to a mere 50,000.

And which body part did you pull that number out of? (I'm not asking because I find the number unreasonable but because the lack of reasoning makes it impossible for me to decide how reasonable I find it.)

To eliminate the complexity of biochemistry, which is intensely damaging to evolution and results in numbers closer to the ICR figure,

Again I don't see your reasoning behind this. Exactly what do you mean by "the complexity of biochemistry", and how is your biochemistry damaging to evolution?

I assume “parts of anything,” which could be binary code for sentient software, plasma on the surface of a sun, subatomic particles, etc. rather than atoms, sugars, amino acids, proteins, DNA, etc.

Is that a reasonable assumption? The chemistry involved has very specific rules and probably can't be adequately modelled with so much simplification. (I also doubt that these things you mention can all be modelled with the same rules, but that's a different matter).

I also give each part a 50% chance of creating a favorable reaction each time they interact with each other.

Again, where does that come from?

In real life, hydrocarbon reactions like to form CO2 and H2O, not long-chain hydrocarbons like sugar, amino acids, and proteins.

None of which are technically hydrocarbons

Combustion isn't the only reaction a simple organic molecule can go through. Like in Bada's follow-up on the Miller-Urey experiment. Also, amino acids can be found even in interstellar stuff IIRC (and, as someone posted in a recent crevo thread, nucleobases may be present in meteorites).

That’s why evolutionists are so intent on finding evidence for a non-oxygen atmosphere 2 billion years ago, despite evidence that ranges from very sketchy to non-existent.

The non-oxygen atmosphere we need is probably over 4 billion years ago. 2 billion years ago recognisable microbes were flourishing - AFAIK it's quite accepted that the Gunflint Chert microfossils are indeed ancient cells. Possible cyanobacteria date back to 3.5 Ga (although there seems to be more controversy over these ones)

From your link:

Ohmoto's research allowed him to classify the observed paleosols according to their isotopic characteristics. The details of this need not concern us in this review, but the conclusions are of considerable interest.

The details are precisely what I'd be interested in That's where the devil is, you know. We evil scientatheists just love the devil.

This new analysis puts increasing pressure on all "reducing atmosphere" interpretations of the Earth's early atmosphere. There is no observed trend of reducing -> neutral -> oxidising. As far as data is concerned, the Earth's atmosphere has always been oxidising. Theories of abiogenesis which require a reducing atmosphere are pushed further into a realm of speculation supported by theoretical models but not by empirical data.

I have issues with a few things your link doesn't address: first,

* Iron (Fe) i s extremely reactive with oxygen. If we look at the oxidation state of Fe in the rock record, we can infer a great deal about atmospheric evolution.
* Archean - Find occurrence of minerals that only form in non-oxidizing environments in Archean sediments: Pyrite (Fools gold; FeS[sub]2[/sub]), Uraninite (UO[sub]2[/sub]). These minerals are easily dissolved out of rocks under present atmospheric conditions. (from here)

How about these minerals? I'm sincerely interested as I'm not a geologist, much less a geochemist, and I'm very far from up-to-date on this area.

Second, how does this fit in with banded iron formations?

Third: how old is the oldest palaeosol? Or just the oldest one examined by Ohmoto? Your link says 3 Ga. By that time life was probably past the early stages that couldn't have occurred with free oxygen (especially if those proposed 3.5 Ga old cyanobacteria from Australia I've read about are indeed cyanobacteria - which also happen to produce oxygen on a conveyor belt)

An atmosphere with free oxygen points to the contemporaneity of plants which photosynthesise. However, to date, studies of organic life in the Archaean have suggested the existence of only bacteria and single-celled algae. But this evidence is not plentiful. Even the growth mounds, the Precambrian stromatolites, now appears to be better explained as having an abiotic origin (Grotzinger & Rothman, 1996)

Cyanobacteria are as good bacteria as any, and as good oxygenic photosynthesisers as any. I don't know if that one reference counts as "better explained". From my brief googlings around the topic, the earliest stromatolites and "fossil cells" are controversial at best - far from settled in either direction.

But my 50% favorable reaction assumption resolves this debate, such as it is, in favor of evolution.

We don't want favourable assumptions, we want reasonable ones.

Another highly favorable assumption is that when the atoms coalesce to form a cell, the cell becomes alive.

Poof! What exactly does this mean?

The reality is not Frankenstein’s monster—life forms don’t become alive by being shocked with electricity. They have an ineffable quality that science does not yet understand, a kind of biological software, but which I disregard in this analysis.

Neh. For all science does understand we are just incredibly complex chemical reactions. Define "life" anyway.

Also, chemical catalysts are not alive—we have to keep ourselves in reality rather than coming up with…unusual…definitions of life.

Where do you draw the line? Is a self-replicating polymer alive? Is a self-replicating polymer in a lipid bubble alive? Is a self-replicating polymer encoding another polymer that boosts its replication alive? Is a polymer in a lipid bubble that makes other polymers replicate it (like our DNA) alive? Just how many interacting molecules do you need to consider a replicating system alive?

As I see it, non-living chemicals ---> life is a continuum and any line you draw anywhere will be arbitrary.

I'd be so happy if you gave us the "usual" definition of life before you start calculating the chances of something spontaneously becoming "alive".

Regardless, those precursors themselves would have more than 50,000 parts, and that assumption is given to evolutionists.

Uh... okay?

So, assuming 50,000 parts combining in a specific way to result in life, which can be anything from subatomic particles to computer bits to atoms, and assuming interactions with 50% favorable results, and assuming that every unit can combine in parallel to increase the odds of success, the probability can be modeled as follows:<snip>

You are not modelling independent events. To give a simplistic example, the chances of an RNA oligomer popping into existence directly from carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen and phosphorus is... well, 1 in a number that probably wouldn't fit on the screen. On the other hand, the chance vastly increases once you have nucleotides (although a catalyst is probably still required from what I've read). So the two events are not independent. The same goes for each and every intermediate step, whatever those may be. Consequently you can't just multiply all the probabilities. The sad conclusion is that your probability calculation doesn't make any sense as a model. (On a second look, it doesn't really make sense at all, but you could help me out on that)

Adding up those numbers is beyond my computer power, so arbitrarily, let’s cut the probability drastically and call it 1 chance in 10^7500. The ICR article I linked above says the highest standard of impossibility in scientific literature by which a event is considered totally impossible to occur is 1 chance in 10^150.

And what hole did ICR pull that number out of?

Conclusion: non-guided evolution is impossible.

Conclusion: you don't know what evolution is.

If you disagree, I invite you to share your conclusions, but I respectfully ask you to run the math and provide me with your number.

If you're not convinced by TalkOrigins then I really don't know how I, a non-statistician and non-abiogenesis-specialist could convince you.

What about Aliens?

I for one find them a stupid "explanation" for the origin of life...

Assuming that aliens seeded our planet or made evolution happen begs the question of how the aliens themselves came to be.

...for precisely the same reason you do.

Keep in mind that there are less than 10^100 subatomic particles in the entire universe out to 14 billion light years. If you believe in parallel universes, string theory, and interuniversal travel, let’s add in a trillion trillion extra universes (10^24), and let’s assume each universe has a density of 1 g/cm^3 (our universe has a density of (9.9 × 10-30 g/cm^3) with interacting subatomic particles, such that the interaction could create any kind of arbitrary alien life form imaginable (with 50,000 parts or more). That increases the number of parts available to interact to about 10^154. So subtract 154 from my number above. Let’s give such alien life forms a trillion trillion years to form and give each particle a million interactions per year. Subtract 30. Let’s assume that a million combinations of those 50,000 parts would result in a functional life form. Subtract 6. 7500-154-30-6 = 7310. 1 / (1*10^7310) is still impossible.

Eh, what?

What if God guided evolution?

Same as the aliens. Where did God come from?

That is essentially a theological debate with a different set of logical rules. The Bible doesn’t say God created us with evolution, and a lot of atheists have pointed out the fallacy of that argument on recent threads (e.g. when did original sin happen?).

Whoever said that I don't think that's a good objection. If someone interprets the Bible metaphorically enough to be a TE I doubt they take the story of original sin literally.

If you choose to believe in God, it’s helpful to pick an established, internally coherent and consistent religion that can reasonably claim to have received messages from God.

I don't know of any religion that satisfies the latter criterion. I'm not sure about the former.

Christianity is such a religion. Here's a recent thread of mine regarding affirmative proof of God and Jesus Christ. Many Christians today have heard from God. I know at least two people who have heard his audible voice. I can introduce you to such people who I’m sure you’ll find credible.

Many people hear voices of things and people other than God, yet we don't start looking for the old lady's long-dead husband or Pete's imaginary friend (or the shaman's spirits). What makes the supposed voice of God special?

My meager ability to reason tells me that even a simple shovel couldn't form from random chance--how would such a marvelous bacteria form? I can only give credit to God.

If you are to be consistent with your own meager reasoning, you can give as much credit to God as you can to aliens.

 

[Naraoia]

You'll also want to comment on the self-assembly of billions upon trillions of abiotic peptide bonds each year SOURCE. Apparently, DuPont didn't get the memo on the creationist exercises in statistical nonsense, which disprove the validity of all of their decades of work and billions in profit from polyamide chemistry...

How did I manage to learn about nylon in school and miss the peptide bonds?

This is why I love CF

 

[Naraoia]

As I said earlier, bare chemical reactions create unreactive rock and unreactive gas (O2, CO2, H2, H2O, etc.).

Oxygen? Unreactive? *dies laughing*

You really don't know the first thing about chemistry, do you?

I suggest you put some unreactive oxygen and unreactive hydrogen together and give them a wee spark.

 

[Naraoia]

The mere fact that living cells create complex molecules practically by magic does not mean that the tenets of chemistry allow such cells to have spontaneously generated either instantaneously or or over a trillion trillion years.

Practically by magic? I think it's called chemistry.

BTW, enzymes can't do anything that wouldn't spontaneously happen. They speed up some reactions immensely but they don't make non-spontaneous reactions spontaneous (other than by coupling them with an energy-releasing reaction - but, as I'm sure you know, nucleoside triphosphates aren't the only sources of energy on this planet...)

The probability is so small, impossible, in fact, that God is a much more reasonable explanation, notwithstanding our inability to understand how God himself came to be. He is the only explanation by process of elimination.

Except you never eliminated the most plausible explanation. Nor have you dealt with the probability of your God existing/forming. What really matters is not how probable each individual explanation is but which one is most probable.

 

[True_Blue]

Here is why you actually need to take a high school chemistry course, again. There is no molecular oxygen cited at all at that link that you provided.
I can only assume that you saw the atomic oxygen included in volcanic gasses like CO2, SO2, and CO, and said "Aha! Oxygen!! The ancient atmosphere must therefore have been oxidative!!!". Thus, your ignorance of chemistry causes your analysis to fall flat from the off...

And so we get back to your fundamental stumbling block. As with your exercise in statistical nonsense, you're treating all combinations of atoms (parts) as equivalent, when nothing could be further from the truth. If the oxygen contained in those molecules behaves the same as good old O2, then kindly prove it to all of us by grabbing an SCBA cylinder full of sulfur dioxide, and trying to breathe the stuff.

Oxygen (O2) is not an output gas of volcanoes. In order for the prebiotic earth's atmosphere to be oxidative, it would need molecular oxygen, O2, and a lot of it. The link you provided amply demonstrates that such gas was not provided by volcanoes...

K, first of all, cut down on the hyperbole. That's very, very tiresome.

Anyways, I don't always make posts that rebut in advance the likely responses. Perhaps I should have here. I would refer you to ionizing radiation in the atmosphere. I am not an expert on atmospheric physics/chemistry, but it seems to me that solar radiation ionizes compounds emitted by volcanoes, and at the end of the day, you're gonna end up with a lot of O2. The rate of ionization and the steady state equilibrium reached will depend on a person's assumptions about the early atmosphere.

 

[True_Blue]

Thaumaturgy, I am willing to accept your point that the ICR's research does not kill off abiogenesis completely. It&#8217;s very difficult to completely rule out a scientific viewpoint. To zoom back a bit in this debate and look at the bigger picture, the reason I bring up prehistoric atmospheres is an admittedly aggressive attempt to change one of the assumptions in my probability model from 50% favorable interactions between molecules to 1% or less. Evolutionists have a lot of moving parts to reconcile. For example, the early atmosphere would have to be such that the earth would not overhead. If volcanos are spewing mostly CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere, how hot would the surface of the earth be? Lots of moving parts. When I look at the other planets, I see the difficulty of assuming atmospheres other than the one we&#8217;ve got, which is beautiful by comparison.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thaumaturgy, I am willing to accept your point that the ICR's research does not kill off abiogenesis completely. It’s very difficult to completely rule out a scientific viewpoint. To zoom back a bit in this debate and look at the bigger picture, the reason I bring up prehistoric atmospheres is an admittedly aggressive attempt to change one of the assumptions in my probability model from 50% favorable interactions between molecules to 1% or less. Evolutionists have a lot of moving parts to reconcile.

Not the least of which is constantly having to piont out that Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

For example, the early atmosphere would have to be such that the earth would not overhead. If volcanos are spewing mostly CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere, how hot would the surface of the earth be? Lots of moving parts. When I look at the other planets,

What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying the USGS list of common gases is hiding the O2???

Because, unless I'm very much mistaken, we have plenty of volcanoes to test and the USGS is hardly known for lying about stuff like this.

I see the difficulty of assuming atmospheres other than the one we’ve got, which is beautiful by comparison.

CORRECTION: It is beautiful to us, oxygen-breathing creatures. How "Beautiful" is it to anoxic organisms that inhabit small chunks of this planet where they are safe from the burning oxygen that killed off many of their ancestors about 1.8 billion years ago during the "Oxygen Holocaust".

Or do you find that life to be vile and undeserving of appreciation? Is it not equally "magical" to life that breathes oxygen?