Hans Blaster
On August Recess
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,649
- 16,345
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That scientists are spiritually deaf.
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?
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.
Do not take what I said out of the context in which it was presented.SelfSim said:Yet another bogus claim:
Autocatalysis:
and your nonsense repeated analogy relating it to the self-assembly of mud brick houses... the proven odds being greater than the number of seconds in the age of the universe
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.
You do not understand how organic chemistry evolves.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.
Rubbish .. as evidenced by the objective measurability of how autocatalytic sets evolve.chad kincham said: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.
Irrelevantchad kincham said: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.
DNA is an evolved chemical species.chad kincham said: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.
Yes .. human minds!chad kincham said:Information and language only comes from an intelligent mind.
Erroneous conclusion based on ignorance of the principles of organic chemistry.chad kincham said:Ergo, abiogenesis is impossible under every scenario.
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.
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.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.
Common sense knows organic chemicals don’t assemble themselves into living organisms.
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 thing is, one doesn't have to believe in abiogenesis to see that its objectively testable .. Its testability is what makes it 'possible'.Something like how heavier than air flight was impossible
The 'common sense' card always lurks at the bottom of the pile of arguments from ignorance, eh?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 thing is, one doesn't have to believe in abiogenesis to see that its objectively testable .. Its testability is what makes it 'possible'.
If science were just common sense then we would be living in on world that the sun resolves around.Common sense knows organic chemicals don’t assemble themselves into living organisms.
Reference needed.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.
When you make such claims please supply a reference.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.
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.
An assumed 'true belief', held as posit, with subsequent logic applied, reproduces nothing more than the originally believed-in truth value.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.
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?chad kincham said:Information and language only comes from an intelligent mind.
DNA is an evolved chemical species.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?