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

[AV1611VET]

That anyone even talks about Miller and Co. decades later as if its somehow a relevant to the state of the art is a true Sign of 'science" knowledge restricted to creationist site lies.

Just so you know:

In November 2020, a team of international scientists reported studies which suggest that the primeval atmosphere of the Earth was much different than the conditions used in the Miller-Urey studies.

SOURCE

 

[SelfSim]

Sign of 'science" knowledge restricted to creationist site lies.

.. and blinded by the site!

 

[chad kincham]

Not much of a scientist are you. They demonstrated something that had not been seen before. A scientist would ask, where do we go from here with this new information.

That experiment is like combining water and dirt and claiming that the resulting mud proves mud bricks spontaneously assemble themselves, and turn into mud brick huts.

 

[SelfSim]

That experiment is like combining water and dirt and claiming that the resulting mud proves mud bricks spontaneously assemble themselves, and turn into mud brick huts.

Which is an objectively demonstrable analogy
.. So what?

 

[chad kincham]

Yet another bogus claim:
Autocatalysis:

Computer models prove exactly nothing except what they’re programmed to prove, just like all the computer climate models were completely wrong, but showed what they wanted them to predict.

Calculation of the odds of abiogenesis occurring exceeds the number of seconds of the age of the universe, which isn’t merely impossible, it’s ridiculously impossible.

Before that calculation, and many others that show the same odds, the astronomer Hoyle admitted that the odds of a living cell spontaneously arising from random organic chemical processes equal that of a tornado assembling a functional jet airliner by going through a junkyard.

 

[SelfSim]

Computer models prove exactly nothing except what they’re programmed to prove, just like all the computer climate models were completely wrong, but showed what they wanted them to predict.

Calculation of the odds of abiogenesis occurring exceeds the number of seconds of the age of the universe, which isn’t merely impossible, it’s ridiculously impossible.

Before that calculation, and many others that show the same odds, the astronomer Hoyle admitted that the odds of a living cell spontaneously arising from random organic chemical processes equal that of a tornado assembling a functional jet airliner by going through a junkyard.

Again .. more bogus-ity from ignorance.
Autocatalysis is an empirical (lab demonstrable) type of chemical reaction .. (nothing to do with probability estimations).

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Computer models prove exactly nothing except what they’re programmed to prove, just like all the computer climate models were completely wrong, but showed what they wanted them to predict.

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.)

Calculation of the odds of abiogenesis occurring exceeds the number of seconds of the age of the universe, which isn’t merely impossible, it’s ridiculously impossible.

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.)

Before that calculation, and many others that show the same odds, the astronomer Hoyle admitted that the odds of a living cell spontaneously arising from random organic chemical processes equal that of a tornado assembling a functional jet airliner by going through a junkyard.

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.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Computer models prove exactly nothing except what they’re programmed to prove, just like all the computer climate models were completely wrong, but showed what they wanted them to predict.

Calculation of the odds of abiogenesis occurring exceeds the number of seconds of the age of the universe, which isn’t merely impossible, it’s ridiculously impossible.

Before that calculation, and many others that show the same odds, the astronomer Hoyle admitted that the odds of a living cell spontaneously arising from random organic chemical processes equal that of a tornado assembling a functional jet airliner by going through a junkyard.

Yes we know that you are a computer engineer who attempts to make sense of your understanding with which you wish to be true, You are hardly the first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That experiment proved nothing.

The main substance that developed was tar, and there had to be a trap/filter in it to capture and separate out the elements they wanted to get, then had to remove them quickly before they deteriorated.

There’s no mechanism for abiogenesis in any primordial earth scenario.

Why didn't you just admit that you have no clue what the purpose of the experiment was.


By the way, it was highly successful.

And just because you do not understand the mechanism, heck you could not even understand the Miller-Urey experiment, does not mean that there was not a mechanism for abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just so you know:

SOURCE

Old news. The experiment was done quite a few other times with different atmospheres. They still produced amino acids.

 

[AV1611VET]

Old news.

Since November 2020?

The experiment was done quite a few other times with different atmospheres.

Since November 2020?

They still produced amino acids.

Since November 2020?

 

[Speedwell]

Just so you know:

SOURCE

That's not exactly late-breaking news, AV. It's been known for years. But don't worry, the experiment has been repeated successfully with different mixtures of gasses. The whole business is old-hat now, the thing of kids' science fair experiments. Miller and Urey have long been passed over by modern abiogenesis research. They are still respected for their original insight is all, much as Darwin is still respected for the same reason.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not exactly late-breaking news, AV. It's been known for years.

But not reported until six months ago?

Perhaps they learned their lesson from Nebraska Man? ya think?

 

[Speedwell]

But not reported until six months ago?

Perhaps they learned their lesson from Nebraska Man? ya think?

The most recent conclusions about the state of the early Earth's atmosphere were reported in November. Nothing to do with experiments conducted with various gas mixtures subsequent to Miller-Urey, which were reported on when they were carried out.

 

[AV1611VET]

The most recent conclusions about the state of the early Earth's atmosphere were reported in November. Nothing to do with experiments conducted with various gas mixtures subsequent to Miller-Urey, which were reported on when they were carried out.

That's confusing.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's confusing.

It's literally the last sentence of the section recent results:

"In November 2020, a team of international scientists reported studies which suggest that the primeval atmosphere of the Earth was much different than the conditions used in the Miller-Urey studies."

Seems pretty straight forward to me. You must have read the relevant section of the wikipedia article since you linked to that precise section and mentioned the "Nov 2020" date multiple times.

 

[Hans Blaster]

... a disagreement over basic reality?

I find a lot of discussions with creationists seem to be boil down to disagreement over the nature of reality. And I'm not sure that there is a way to bridge such disagreement.

Yes, obviously it is. After 3 weeks of this thread it clearly is the focal point of the disagreement.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since November 2020?Since November 2020?Since November 2020?

Long before then.

 

[Bradskii]

Calculation of the odds of abiogenesis occurring exceeds the number of seconds of the age of the universe, which isn’t merely impossible, it’s ridiculously impossible.

Before that calculation, and many others that show the same odds, the astronomer Hoyle admitted that the odds of a living cell spontaneously arising from random organic chemical processes equal that of a tornado assembling a functional jet airliner by going through a junkyard.

Chad, if your sources are a dumb as a box of rocks then they might tell you about those odds. You'll need to find better sources. And if they're reasonably smart then they know those figures are not determined by the actual processes involved. In which case they are lying to you. And you'll need to find better sources.

A few basic chemistry rules (designed by God if you like), a fair amount of time and always working with what you have at any one time and not restarting from scratch, and the odds are a tad shorter. Note the phrases in italics. Your sources either aren't aware of them or deliberately omit them.

Now you are aware of them, you won't make the same mistake again.

 

[SelfSim]

Old news. The experiment was done quite a few other times with different atmospheres. They still produced amino acids.

Yes .. and taking it beyond Miller Urey into Stuart Kauffman's world of autocatalytic sets:

i) Amino acids linked together form peptides and then all then all the way up to polypeptides. (A polypeptide that contains more than approximately fifty amino acids is known as a protein);

ii) Collections of peptide sets can invariably become autocatalytic sets, then:
iii) in a sufficiently complex peptide 'soup', a phase transition occurs, and molecular reproduction spontaneously happens.

What this means is that molecular reproduction simply need to not be based on template replicating DNA/RNA, (so claims that RNA molecules are needed to achieve molecular replication are simply false).

It also means that any notions that: life's self-replication property, only comes from other self-replicating life, are equally false.

This is the empirically demonstrable basis of modern-day Abiogenesis hypotheses.