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

[Subduction Zone]

re are scads of honest evolutionist who admit science is very biased towards atheism and naturalism, and “can’t allow a divine foot in the door”. Science it not biased towards atheism but creationism is obviously biased against science.

So? No one is claiming that there is hostility between atheists and creationists. As a frequent poster you should know that.

No one claiming differently. My point was that researchers are aware that their bias can creep in so take precautions to guard against them doing so. I know that from my own studies and experience. I am not a scientist but I have do have a graduate research degree.

The sciences have a self correcting mechanism that helps to remove biases too. Peer review forces to people to keep honest since the last thing that one wants to happen is to be refuted due to not approaching a topic honestly. In the sciences being wrong is allowed. Being dishonest can be career ending. For creationists it is the opposite. To even work at creationist sites one has to first agree that no matter what creationism is correct. That means that what they are doing is not science. In the sciences one never gets to assume a specific answer. The answer must be justified by the evidence. Creationists turn that rule upside down. As a result there are openly dishonest creationists that very rarely get called to task by their peers.

 

[chad kincham]

Oh .. and that last post, is on top of the evidence against to @chad kincham's other bogus claims about the Autocatalysis Abiogenesis Hypothesis:

..

Abiogenesis is impossible because chemical reactions needed in abiogenesis always produces the wrong sugars and other compounds that stop the process along with the key components.

Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ website has a comprehensive list which explains in detail, why abiogenesis cannot occur, No matter how long the time span is:

Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is impossible because chemical reactions needed in abiogenesis always produces the wrong sugars and other compounds that stop the process along with the key components.

Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ website has a comprehensive list which explains in detail, why abiogenesis cannot occur, No matter how long the time span is:

Is the Chemical Origin of Life (Abiogenesis) a Realistic Scenario?

Dr. Hugh Ross is not a credible source when he speaks outside of his area of expertise.

 

[chad kincham]

The sciences have a self correcting mechanism that helps to remove biases too. Peer review forces to people to keep honest since the last thing that one wants to happen is to be refuted due to not approaching a topic honestly. In the sciences being wrong is allowed. Being dishonest can be career ending. For creationists it is the opposite. To even work at creationist sites one has to first agree that no matter what creationism is correct. That means that what they are doing is not science. In the sciences one never gets to assume a specific answer. The answer must be justified by the evidence. Creationists turn that rule upside down. As a result there are openly dishonest creationists that very rarely get called to task by their peers.

On the contrary there are a great deal of scientists and medical researchers that state the peer review process is broken and actually impedes scientific progress.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@chad kincham instead of quoting a person that has no clue, why not do a little searching and finding what work has been done. The problem of chirality is well known. It has also been solved:

Origin of Homochirality in Biosystems

"Experimental data for a series of central and simple molecules in biosystems show that some amino acids and a simple sugar molecule have a chiral discrimination in favor of homochirality. Models for segregation of racemic mixtures of chiral amphiphiles and lipophiles in aqueous solutions show that the amphiphiles with an active isomerization kinetics can perform a spontaneous break of symmetry during the segregation and self-assembly to homochiral matter. Based on this observation it is argued that biomolecules with a sufficiently strong chiral discrimination could be the origin of homochirality in biological systems."

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the contrary there are a great deal of scientists and medical researchers that state the peer review process is broken and actually impedes scientific progress.

No, there are some. There are not "a great deal". And most of the problems are in medical science, a much softer science since it is just a little bit frowned upon when one does random experiments on human subjects. We do not have to worry about harming others in the study of general biology or abiogenesis. It is more of a hard science instead of a soft science as a result.

Like it or not the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as a fact.

 

[SelfSim]

Abiogenesis is impossible because chemical reactions needed in abiogenesis always produces the wrong sugars and other compounds that stop the process along with the key components.

.. and for at least the third time, the lie is repeated.
ETA: and explained again here ..
ETA#2: and again, (more explicitly), here ..

 

[Subduction Zone]

.. and for at least the third time, the lie is repeated.
ETA: and explained again here ..

Yes, but it is such a good one

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, but it is such a good one

The repetition of it, in the face of denials of the presentation of contradicting material, defines it as being 'a lie'. (I suspect I'm on an ignore list, perhaps, although I can't see why?)
Deliberately ignoring posts, as a way of continuing to state abject lies, is the fault of the ignorer .. (and not the accuser)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The repetition of it, in the face of denials of the materials presented, defines it as being 'a lie'. (I suspect I'm on an ignore list, perhaps, although I can't see why?)

I have had that happen when I refute the claims of another too many times. When one cannot answer the arguments of another one can "solve" the problem by putting that person on ignore.

 

[chad kincham]

The Argument From Very Big Numbers is really a poor one.

Let's assume that 97 billion to 1 odds statistic is correct.

What it fails to consider is the available probability space.

Non-organic and organic chemicals are binding and reacting with each other all the time. At least trillions of times per day. Everywhere. All the time.

The probability space is immense. Literally incalculably large.

If organic chemicals were reacting/binding with each other at a rate of just one event per second, then an event with odds of 97 billion to 1 would occur every 3100 years. Roughly

10 events per second? 310 years.
1000 events per second. 31 years.
10000 events per second. 3.1 years.

Using that lottery example: suppose that instead of just buying one ticket, you bought thousands. And everyone else you knew bought thousands. And everyone they knew also bought thousands of tickets.

What are the odds of someone winning then?

That's the problem here with then numbers argument. Abiogenesis wasn't a singular event at a singular moment. It's not a single person buying a single lottery ticket. It's a billion people buying a billion lottery tickets every second of every day for hundreds of million of years.

There are some arguments that thanks to thermodynamics, abiogenesis is not only more probable than not, but it may be inevitable.

If the odds of a chimp randomly pecking away at a typewriter producing the works of Shakespeare are impossible - then having ten million chimps pecking randomly at a typewriter for 14 billion years, still will never produce the works of Shakespeare.

Researchers admit that the organic compounds and amino acids occur nowhere on earth in sufficient concentration and amounts to ever assemble a living cell.

And reactions needed to produce RNA or DNA produce sugars and other stuff that completely impede their formation

And that’s in addition to the homochirality problem that is insurmountable.

Thus if you have 100 million pools of insufficient concentrations of compounds and chemicals needed, over billions of years, the impossible still has zero chance of occurring.

That’s why lab researchers have to use purified and concentrated amino acids and organic compounds. There’s no path for any prebiotic scenario to work.

Claims of abiogenesis proof rely on exaggeration, hyperbole, and avoiding inconvenient facts such as these, that are on Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ website

Different phase of chemical evolution, but following along the lines of the original (and outdated) above complaint:

Another Abiogenesis 'road-block' bites the dust (published 10 March 2021):

Chemical Fueling Enables Molecular Complexification of Self‐Replicators

Same old story:

Lab experiments using artificial methods of starting and stopping chemical processes at just the right time, and using injection of catalysts and fuels that are never present in any possible primordial scenario, produces some favorable results, which they extrapolate would continue unabated and produce a living cell.

Next.

 

[chad kincham]

Probability is based on assumptions and your assumptions are your religious beliefs.

Science research is not religious assumption.

The simplest cell is like an unbelievably complex city using nano technology to function, and it’s complexity increases with continuing research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the odds of a chimp randomly pecking away at a typewriter producing the works of Shakespeare are impossible - then having ten million chimps pecking randomly at a typewriter for 14 billion years, still will never produce the works of Shakespeare.

The problem is that this argument ignores the role of natural selection. When one adds natural selection to the mix the success is all but guaranteed.

Researchers admit that the organic compounds and amino acids occur nowhere on earth in sufficient concentration and amounts to ever assemble a living cell.

In today's environment that is true. Do you think that the environment was always the same? You won't find experts in the field agreeing with your claim about events in the past.

And reactions needed to produce RNA or DNA produce sugars and other stuff that completely impede their formation

And that’s in addition to the homochirality problem that is insurmountable.

I just refuted this claim. I am sure that others have as well.

Thus if you have 100 million pools of insufficient concentrations of compounds and chemicals needed, over billions of years, the impossible still has zero chance of occurring.

That’s why lab researchers have to use purified and concentrated amino acids and organic compounds. There’s no path for any prebiotic scenario to work.

Claims of abiogenesis proof rely on exaggeration, hyperbole, and avoiding inconvenient facts such as these, that are on Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ website


Same old story:

Lab experiments using artificial methods of starting and stopping chemical processes at just the right time, and using injection of catalysts and fuels that are never present in any possible primordial scenario, produces some favorable results, which they extrapolate would continue unabated and produce a living cell.

Next.

So all you have are false and refuted claims. Since you have been refuted time after time why do you keep repeating the same ignorant falsehoods?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science research is not religious assumption.

The simplest cell is like an unbelievably complex city using nano technology to function, and it’s complexity increases with continuing research.

Once again you are looking at the simplest cell that has a history of over three billion years of evolution. This is an instant fail on your part.

 

[chad kincham]

No, there are some. There are not "a great deal". And most of the problems are in medical science, a much softer science since it is just a little bit frowned upon when one does random experiments on human subjects. We do not have to worry about harming others in the study of general biology or abiogenesis. It is more of a hard science instead of a soft science as a result.

Like it or not the vast majority of scientists accept evolution as a fact.

They have to, whether they do or not, if they want to have a career in science today.

 

[SelfSim]

And reactions needed to produce RNA or DNA produce sugars and other stuff that completely impede their formation

And that’s in addition to the homochirality problem that is insurmountable.

Thus if you have 100 million pools of insufficient concentrations of compounds and chemicals needed, over billions of years, the impossible still has zero chance of occurring.

Autocatalytic reactions are self-sustaining where there is an adequate availability of a supply of much smaller molecular nutrients. That more than adequate supply of nutrients was found to be evident 3.5 billion years ago, here.

It has also been found (recently) that replicator destruction actually facilitates the molecular complexification of self-replicators.

That’s why lab researchers have to use purified and concentrated amino acids and organic compounds. There’s no path for any prebiotic scenario to work.

.. again the lie is repeated (via denialism .. and perhaps by way of ignore lists?.

Claims of abiogenesis proof rely on exaggeration, hyperbole, and avoiding inconvenient facts such as these, that are on Astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross’ website
Same old story:

Lab experiments using artificial methods of starting and stopping chemical processes at just the right time, and using injection of catalysts and fuels that are never present in any possible primordial scenario, produces some favorable results, which they extrapolate would continue unabated and produce a living cell.

Rubbish! .. (For all the reasons already posted).

 

[chad kincham]

Its true that some reactions stop (for several reasons). Its also true that many don't. Some oscillate also. When left alone, eventually, a spontaneous phase transition occurs across the whole mix and complex life functions emerge (like metabolism) .. along with increasingly complex proteins (in Abiogensis hypotheses)... all supported in objective evidence.

Researchers admit that the components needed for abiogenesis never appears in sufficient concentrations anywhere on earth, for abiogenesis to occur.

To do abiogenesis research, they use compounds and chemicals concentrated over 100 times more than can be found in any possible prebiotic scenario.

So from the get go, abiogenesis is falsified by the above facts, and falsified by homochirality.

 

[chad kincham]

@chad kincham instead of quoting a person that has no clue, why not do a little searching and finding what work has been done. The problem of chirality is well known. It has also been solved:

Origin of Homochirality in Biosystems

"Experimental data for a series of central and simple molecules in biosystems show that some amino acids and a simple sugar molecule have a chiral discrimination in favor of homochirality. Models for segregation of racemic mixtures of chiral amphiphiles and lipophiles in aqueous solutions show that the amphiphiles with an active isomerization kinetics can perform a spontaneous break of symmetry during the segregation and self-assembly to homochiral matter. Based on this observation it is argued that biomolecules with a sufficiently strong chiral discrimination could be the origin of homochirality in biological systems."

Re read their conclusion: COULD BE the origin of homochirality.

Just one more theory based on assumptions from unrealistic experiments that do not mimic an actual prebiotic environment - which happens regularly.

You’re taking partial and preliminary experiments as having solved the homochirality problem, which it has not.

Research shows that under any realistic prebiotic scenario, amino acids occur in extremely weak concentrations, with equal amounts of L and R handed molecules.

I’d say close but no cigar, but this wasn’t anywhere near close.

 

[Bradskii]

Odds of any one ticket winning is 1 in 16 million if 16 million tickets were sold so you can’t refute that.

To get the odds of winning for any person wanting to win to 50/50 would require buying 8 million of the 16 million tickets.

But your analogy is assuming one draw. One lottery. And one winner. Period. But either you still don't know how it actually works or you are ignoring the facts in the hope that they'll go away.

The lottery represents all the small 'experiments' that nature runs through every single second. And we're not looking for a winner. All we're looking for is a combination of elements that have a better survival rate than the individual elements. And then we keep those and build on them.

And what's with the 16 million? The number of possible combinations happening planetwide at any given instant would be billions upon billions. But lets go with 16 million. And say that we only get some improvement using those 1:16,000,000 odds. Even allowing for any process to occur just every second (a ridiculously long time) then according to you, we'd get a winner every 5 months. So in the time allowed (the length of time it took for life to emerge) we'd have 120,000,000 winners.

AND...as has been explained to you, if you build on even very tiny advantages, the odds drop stupendously (remember the card analogy or the Shakespeare one? They both went from longer than the universe has existed to a few days).

Even using your own figures, you are guaranteed a result. When is the penny going to drop?

 

[chad kincham]

Autocatalytic reactions are self-sustaining where there is an adequate availability of a supply of much smaller molecular nutrients. That more than adequate supply of nutrients was found to be evident 3.5 billion years ago, here.

It has also been found (recently) that replicator destruction actually facilitates the molecular complexification of self-replicators.
.. again the lie is repeated (via denialism .. and perhaps by way of ignore lists?.
Rubbish! .. (For all the reasons already posted).

Do something different: actually look at the data there, all of it.