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

[Astrid]

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.

Pasteur proved abio is impossible.
Miller-Urey demonstrated that it can't be done.
Darwins theory is disproved by failure of
his own prediction.
People who love science know these things.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

The best calculation for the odds of abiogenesis was from a Quora discussion.

Max Robinson, Ph.D. Molecular Biology and Biotechnology & Evolutionary Genetics, University of Washington (2005)
Answered March 15, 2018

The thing about abiogenesis happening by chance is that one needs to take into account two very important details:

1. In order to pose the question, life has to exist, and more than that, it has to exist where the question is being asked. Wherever we were in the Universe is where we would ask, so we have to consider how likely life was to arise anywhere in the Universe, our interest in life on this particular planet just comes from us already being here.

The size of the laboratory. Suppose you play a game with one chance in ten of winning; 90% of the time, you will lose. But suppose that you and 9 friends each play that game on the same day. What is the probability that all 10 of you will lose? It is .910=.3492. so it is more likely that at least one of you will win. Suppose you had 99 friends play, instead of just 9; then how likely is it none of you will win? That is 0.9100=0.0000266, or one chance in 37,649. So it isn't really a matter of how unlikely it is to win, as much as it is how that chance compares to how many times you try.

Now, how many planets are there in the universe? Only counting the ones that have conditions, like liquid water, that could support life. Oh we had better double it, because based on our own solar system, there are planet-sized moons that have liquid water, too. There must be millions in our galaxy, and there are billions of galaxies. Now take the size of a laboratory: how many laboratories would fit in Earth's oceans? Again, billions. So we have about a billion billion million laboratories in the universe where abiogenesis might happen any day. And how many days has the average laboratory been around? Well, the ones on Earth have existed for about 4 billion years, and each year is 365 days, so let's round it to a trillion.

So there you have it. The universe has had about a million billion billion trillion laboratory days in which to have abiogenesis occur by dumb luck; all that we need to show is that abiogenesis has at least, say, one chane in a billion billion trillion of happening in a laboratory day, and there should be about a million places in the universe where it has happened by now. As far as I am concerned, the ease with which the conditions on early Earth, replicated in a laboratory, rapidly produce the same organic molecules that are the basis of life on Earth, in just one laboratory in a very small number of tries, suggests that the chance of abiogenesis is much, much greater than one in a billion billion trillion.

And since we know there is someone on this particular planet who has reached sentience as has asked the question, it seems pretty likely that at least one of the laboratories that succeeded was here on Earth.

Source...​

 

[Speedwell]

That's confusing.

Let me step it out for you:

Miller and Urey conducted their experiment years ago with a mixture of gasses which they thought represented the atmosphere of the Earth at the time life emerged. The experiment worked. Later, other scientists began to have different ideas about what the mixture of gases was as they learned more about the history of Earth's atmosphere and they tried the experiments with various mixtures. Those experiments worked, too. and they were reported as they occurred. What has recently been reported is the conclusion that Miller and Urey's choice of a mixture for their experiment may have been closer to the mark than some of the subsequent experiments.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Urey's in aitch.

You keep doing that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me step it out for you:

Okay, thanks.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep doing that.

Every once in awhile.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Every once in awhile.

Please stop

 

[AV1611VET]

Please stop

No offense, captain, but don't you think it's tacky for a newbie to show up and ask a veteran to stop something he's been doing for years; even if he only does it once in a while?

 

[Speedwell]

No offense, captain, but don't you think it's tacky for a newbie to show up and ask a veteran to stop something he's been doing for years; even if he only does it once in a while?

Well, you know as one Christian to another I'm not sure it is the right thing for us to be claiming definitely that some other person about whose spiritual state we know nothing has been condemned to eternal torment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you know as one Christian to another I'm not sure it is the right thing for us to be claiming definitely that some other person about whose spiritual state we know nothing has been condemned to eternal torment.

Did it occur to you that both Heaven and Hell start with an aitch?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, you know as one Christian to another I'm not sure it is the right thing for us to be claiming definitely that some other person about whose spiritual state we know nothing has been condemned to eternal torment.

And if someone told AV seriously that he was going to "aitch" he would probably be the first, but definitely not the last, to report that person. One of the flaws here is that one can attack nonmembers here in ways that one cannot do to members.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if someone told AV seriously that he was going to "aitch" he would probably be the first, but definitely not the last, to report that person.

That's a negative.

I'm not trigger happy with the REPORT button.

One of the flaws here is that one can attack nonmembers here in ways that one cannot do to members.

That wasn't an attack.

That was a fact.

I, too, and going to aitch when I die.

 

[Astrid]

You keep doing that.

So don't encourage it with your responses.

 

[Astrid]

Well, you know as one Christian to another I'm not sure it is the right thing for us to be claiming definitely that some other person about whose spiritual state we know nothing has been condemned to eternal torment.

How about as just one decent person to another.

 

[Freth]

... 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.

The nature of reality is that it is and that it is governed by laws. Reality doesn't care about what you choose to believe, it carries forward oblivious.

God, on the other hand, does care about what you believe. He wants you to believe in Him and to trust His word. If He says that He created the world in seven days, He meant it. If He set forth laws to govern the universe, they aren't meant to be broken. If He set forth laws for man, they aren't meant to be broken.

Now, you can choose not to believe in God, but God believes in you regardless. He is and His will carries forward. At some point, reality will be remade, without sin. The knowledge of man will cease to exist and the knowledge of God will carry forward in eternity, as it was meant to be.

The only disagreement is rejection of God, but that's between you and Him, not you and I.

 

[SelfSim]

The nature of reality is that it is and that it is governed by laws. Reality doesn't care about what you choose to believe, it carries forward oblivious.

God, on the other hand, does care about what you believe. He wants you to believe in Him and to trust His word. If He says that He created the world in seven days, He meant it. If He set forth laws to govern the universe, they aren't meant to be broken. If He set forth laws for man, they aren't meant to be broken.

Now, you can choose not to believe in God, but God believes in you regardless. He is and His will carries forward. At some point, reality will be remade, without sin. The knowledge of man will cease to exist and the knowledge of God will carry forward in eternity, as it was meant to be.

The only disagreement is rejection of God, but that's between you and Him, not you and I.

Fleas in a jar .. (with your hand apparently firmly gripping the lid!)

Remove the lid, and the fleas keep jumping the same height.

I, for one, am not a flea in the jar. I choose to jump out, when I notice that the lid has been removed.

 

[Bradskii]

Now, you can choose not to believe in God...

Not possible. Belief is involuntary. It's not a choice. Unless you have a personal example..?

 

[SelfSim]

Not possible. Belief is involuntary. It's not a choice. Unless you have a personal example..?

I take it you mean belief is involuntary for a believer, there(?)
(No freedom to choose in determinism).

 

[Bradskii]

I take it you mean belief is involuntary for a believer, there(?)
(No freedom to choose in determinism).

Uh? No. Starting from a neutral position (no belief or non-belief - i.e. no stated position one way or the other) then assuming free will actually exists, you can't voluntarily choose one of those options.

What you need is evidence for against and make a conscious decision as to how valid the evidence is. Belief is then involuntary.

Unless you have a personal example which indicates otherwise?

 

[SelfSim]

Uh? No. Starting from a neutral position (no belief or non-belief - i.e. no stated position one way or the other) then assuming free will actually exists, you can't voluntarily choose one of those options.

What you need is evidence for against and make a conscious decision as to how valid the evidence is. Belief is then involuntary.

Unless you have a personal example which indicates otherwise?

Interesting .. (thanks) .. got me thinking! (Oh no! )

There's another kind of belief, IMHO .. an undistinguished one, where the belief isn't actually known consciously, (or distinguished), by someone. Its sort of like an undistinguished assumption which has been acquired over years of living experiences, (eg: automatic bigotry or unreasoned predjudice, sexism, etc), but that person is completely unware of its influence over the choices they make in life(?) Perhaps it was a hand-me-down acquired from parenting(?)

In fact, your base assumption of: 'free will existing' there, could be taken as being an assumed belief(?) Ie: the concept of free will, is a concept of an individual's mind .. and can't really be shown (ie: objectively demonstrated), as 'existing', (physically) outside of it .. can it?