Is the fundamental gap between creationists and non-creationists...

[Hans Blaster]

That scientists are spiritually deaf.

It helps when trying to ignore the irrelevancies.

 

[chad kincham]

Isn't the value of a scientific experiment determined by peers? The Miller-Urey experiment was immediately recognised as an important breakthrough in the study of the origin of life.

The Miller-Urey experiment provided the first evidence that organic molecules needed for life could be formed from inorganic components. Isn't that alone a significant breakthrough?

The experiment was a success in that amino acids, the building blocks of life, were produced during the simulation. The finding was so significant that it kick-started an entirely new field of study: Prebiotic Chemistry. Do you think that is trivial?

Just as successful and important as showing water and dirt make mud and using a naturalist presupposition to infer that mud huts build themselves, yes.

 

[chad kincham]

Some people see the glass as half fill others wear creationists' blinders that block them from seeing the glass at all.

If you don't search for the mechanism you will never find it if it is there.

Common sense knows organic chemicals don’t assemble themselves into living organisms.

Yet there is a tremendous amount of grant money and research hours being spent trying to prove the impossible occurred, despite the proven odds being greater than the number of seconds in the age of the universe, because those who make their careers In abiogenesis aren’t about to voluntarily give it up.

The Cambrian explosion is also a serious refutation of gradualism and common descent that is mostly ignored by those making careers and their reputations in neodarwinian evolution.

 

[chad kincham]

Yet another bogus claim:
Autocatalysis:

 

[SelfSim]

Yet another bogus claim:
Autocatalysis:

Do not take what I said out of the context in which it was presented.
It was presented as an objectively evidenced counter to your completely bogus nonsense of:

.. the proven odds being greater than the number of seconds in the age of the universe

and your nonsense repeated analogy relating it to the self-assembly of mud brick houses.

ETA: Chemical evolution is essential in understanding the origins of life.

 

[chad kincham]

Is the thread now just a catalog of things you don't know?



No. Climate models like other simulations are programmed to model the relevant physics/chemistry of the system such that the respond realistically to the initial and boundary conditions. Numerical simulations are often used experimentally to answer questions like "If we took this system and perturbed it in this fashion what would happen." (That's exactly what enhanced CO2 climate models are.)



The number of seconds is *irrelevant* since the second is not some fundamental constant of nature, but a human creation. Comparing any odds (even correctly computed) tells you nothing about the likelihood of something occurring. What matters is how may "opportunitites" there are. It doesn't matter if the odds of winning the lottery jackpot is bigger than the number of people in the country. What matters is how many tickets are sold each week. (And that's for a purely random process.)



As you note Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biochemist or a chemist or biologist of any type. Such "amateur" calculations should be thrown out and if you are to accept any such calculations they should come from people who actually know the relevant material.

Deep time is not the hero of the plot, but makes abiogenesis even more unlikely, since the organic compounds needed are unstable and breakdown quickly, according to organic chemistry.

If memory serves any odds greater that 10 to the 150th power is absolutely impossible, and abiogenesis odds are 10 to the 97 billionth power.

You can set a million monkeys at typewriters for 14 billion years and they still can’t randomly type the works of Shakespeare or any other literary work.

Not to mention that is now

known and admitted that there is NO mechanism that can create information found in DNA, which is a complex four letter biological programming code language that is the operating system that runs the cell, anymore than the two letter binary computer languages that run computers, comes from a natural mechanism.

Information and language only comes from an intelligent mind.

Ergo, abiogenesis is impossible under every scenario.

 

[SelfSim]

Deep time is not the hero of the plot, but makes abiogenesis even more unlikely, since the organic compounds needed are unstable and breakdown quickly, according to organic chemistry.

You do not understand how organic chemistry evolves.

If memory serves any odds greater that 10 to the 150th power is absolutely impossible, and abiogenesis odds are 10 to the 97 billionth power.

Rubbish .. as evidenced by the objective measurability of how autocatalytic sets evolve.

You can set a million monkeys at typewriters for 14 billion years and they still can’t randomly type the works of Shakespeare or any other literary work.

Irrelevant

Not to mention that is now known and admitted that there is NO mechanism that can create information found in DNA, which is a complex four letter biological programming code language that is the operating system that runs the cell, anymore than the two letter binary computer languages that run computers, comes from a natural mechanism.

DNA is an evolved chemical species.

Information and language only comes from an intelligent mind.

Yes .. human minds!

Ergo, abiogenesis is impossible under every scenario.

Erroneous conclusion based on ignorance of the principles of organic chemistry.

 

[Astrid]

You do not understand how organic chemistry evolves.

Rubbish .. as evidenced by the objective measurability of how autocatalysis evolves.

Irrelevant

DNA is an evolved chemical species.

Yes .. human minds!

Erroneous conclusion based on ignorance of the principles of organic chemistry.

Something like how heavier than air flight was impossible

 

[Frank Robert]

Just as successful and important as showing water and dirt make mud and using a naturalist presupposition to infer that mud huts build themselves, yes.

You are entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Miller and Urey's peers have already judged the significance of their work. A search in google scholar on Miller-Urey returns just under 3000 results and a search on Miller-Urey "origin of life" returns just under 2000 results. Sorry but their scientist peers don't agree with your opinion.

BTW, Good example of a faulty analogy.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Common sense knows organic chemicals don’t assemble themselves into living organisms.

Common sense is useless, or worse.

The whole of the scientific enterprise is about *not* getting caught in the intellectual dead ends caused by "common sense".

 

[Hans Blaster]

The Cambrian explosion is also a serious refutation of gradualism and common descent that is mostly ignored by those making careers and their reputations in neodarwinian evolution.

The Cambrian "explosion" lasted for a few 10s of millions of years with millions of generations of animals traversing it.

 

[SelfSim]

Something like how heavier than air flight was impossible

The thing is, one doesn't have to believe in abiogenesis to see that its objectively testable .. Its testability is what makes it 'possible'.

 

[SelfSim]

Common sense is useless, or worse.

The whole of the scientific enterprise is about *not* getting caught in the intellectual dead ends caused by "common sense".

The 'common sense' card always lurks at the bottom of the pile of arguments from ignorance, eh?

 

[Astrid]

The thing is, one doesn't have to believe in abiogenesis to see that its objectively testable .. Its testability is what makes it 'possible'.

People have gone forth to check on ot discover all sorts of
things they did or did not believe in.
Knowing something is or isn't so ahead of time is
antiscience, the essence of creationism.

 

[Frank Robert]

Common sense knows organic chemicals don’t assemble themselves into living organisms.

If science were just common sense then we would be living in on world that the sun resolves around.

Yet there is a tremendous amount of grant money and research hours being spent trying to prove the impossible occurred, despite the proven odds being greater than the number of seconds in the age of the universe, because those who make their careers In abiogenesis aren’t about to voluntarily give it up.

Reference needed.

The Cambrian explosion is also a serious refutation of gradualism and common descent that is mostly ignored by those making careers and their reputations in neodarwinian evolution.

When you make such claims please supply a reference.

 

[Astrid]

If science were just common sense then we would be living in on world that the sun resolves around.
Reference needed.
When you make such claims please supply a reference.

As if there were references.

 

[SelfSim]

People have gone forth to check on ot discover all sorts of things they did or did not believe in.
Knowing something is or isn't so ahead of time is antiscience, the essence of creationism.

An assumed 'true belief', held as posit, with subsequent logic applied, reproduces nothing more than the originally believed-in truth value.

(More crudely, garbage in = garbage out).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Information and language only comes from an intelligent mind.

This is an assumption, and frankly a lousy one.

If you define "information" as a "message" intended to be passed from one mind to another mind, then there is no information in DNA as the interpreter of the "information" is not a mind but rather mindless proteins and protein complexes like ribosomes and there is *no* evidence of intentionality or mind behind the patterns DNA.

If you define information as the pattern of something, then the orientation of minerals in a bit of granite and the shapes of snowflakes are information as well, though randomly created.

 

[SelfSim]

Information and language only comes from an intelligent mind.

What happens to the 'information' that is chosen as being irrelevant by someone looking at the DNA replication process? Once discarded, is it, or is it not, still 'information' .. particularly if it serves no real purpose, once its discarded?

What do those questions tell us about what information really 'is' and where it really 'exists'?

 

[chad kincham]

DNA is an evolved chemical species.

Absolutely wrong.

It is a four letter coded programming language containing complex and specified information, just like Windows 10 is, and both can only come from intelligence, from a mind.

There is NO natural mechanism that can write or create information.