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

chad kincham · Apr 11, 2021

Bradskii said:
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?

First of all, it’s obvious I used the lottery as an example of how odds are computed, and did not say the lottery odds have a direct correlation to abiogenesis odds.

It was an example given because it’s obvious you have no real idea of how odds are calculated.

Secondly, the odds of abiogenesis in reality remain exactly zero, because research has proven that the compounds and chemicals needed for abiogenesis, exist in far too weak concentrations to ever bod together in the first place, in every possible prebiotic environment and scenario.

Bradskii · Apr 11, 2021

chad kincham said:
First of all, it’s obvious I used the lottery as an example of how odds are computed, and did not say the lottery odds have a direct correlation to abiogenesis odds.

It was an example given because it’s obvious you have no real idea of how odds are calculated.

Secondly, the odds of abiogenesis in reality remain exactly zero, because research has proven that the compounds and chemicals needed for abiogenesis, exist in far too weak concentrations to ever bod together in the first place, in every possible prebiotic environment and scenario.

Which prompts the question: Why on earth were you estimating the odds of a process happening if you say the process is impossible in the first place? If something physically can't happen it's not logically possible to calculate the odds of it happening.

I'll let you think about that for a while.

Speedwell · Apr 11, 2021

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

That's about the size of it. I don't see that as a problem; why do you?

SelfSim · Apr 11, 2021

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

The functioning of own bodies' base cellular autocatalytic reactions falsify that notion:

Autocatalysis occurs in the initial transcripts of rRNA. The introns are capable of excising themselves by the process of two nucleophilic transesterification reactions. The RNA able to do this is sometimes referred to as a ribozyme. Additionally, the citric acid cycle is an autocatalytic cycle run in reverse.

chad kincham said:
So from the get go, abiogenesis is falsified by the above facts, and falsified by homochirality.

No .. See Asymmetric autocatalysis and thence the Soai reaction:

Asymmetric autocatalysis occurs when the reaction product is chiral and thus acts as a chiral catalyst for its own production. Reactions of this type, such as the Soai reaction, have the property that they can amplify a very small enantiomeric excess into a large one. This has been proposed as an important step in the origin of biological homochirality.

SelfSim · Apr 11, 2021

chad kincham said:
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.

The Soai reaction is an asymmetric autocatalytic reaction which is known to produce enantiometric excesses, see here:

Reactions of this type, such as the Soai reaction, have the property that they can amplify a very small enantiomeric excess into a large one.

SelfSim · Apr 11, 2021

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

.. and your point is?

Hans Blaster · Apr 11, 2021

chad kincham said:
It was an example given because it’s obvious you have no real idea of how odds are calculated.

Other than the random assembly odds for specific proteins or DNA sequences, where we can compute odds, but they are not based on the mechanism by which scientific inquiry thinks proteins and DNA sequences arrived at their current form ---

NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO COMPUTE THESE ODDS!

Thus any such odds are useless nonsense.

Subduction Zone · Apr 11, 2021

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

It only seems that way to the ignorant. They have to follow the scientific method and use scientific evidence and there is only scientific evidence for evolution and abiogenesis. But then you probably do not understand the concept of either scientific evidence or the scientific method.

Subduction Zone · Apr 11, 2021

chad kincham said:
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.

Yes, they refuted your claim. Too bad that you do not understand the language.

chad kincham · Apr 11, 2021

Subduction Zone said:
It only seems that way to the ignorant. They have to follow the scientific method and use scientific evidence and there is only scientific evidence for evolution and abiogenesis. But then you probably do not understand the concept of either scientific evidence or the scientific method.

Incorrect.

I know all about the scientific method, and who invented it, and how science research works in theory, and how it works in the real world.

Unless you have a graduate degree in the sciences, I most likely know as much as you do, possibly more, about ToE and some other science disciplines.

Watch Ben Stein’s documentary: Expelled - no intelligence allowed, about evolutionists being extremely biased.

SelfSim · Apr 11, 2021

SelfSim said:
chad kincham said:

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

Click to expand...

.. and your point is?

.. because all I have to do is show is that Abiogenesis via autocatalytic sets is possible .. which is conclusively demonstrated in the links I've posted.

You see, I don't just rely on someone's word or their mere opinions here. I can rely on the objective results and empirically evidenced physical theory, which I see embedded in the actual papers linked by the media announcements.

That's a big difference between creationist/ID '-isms' and scientific thinking ..
No-one's mere 'word' is ever 'sacred'.

Hans Blaster · Apr 11, 2021

chad kincham said:
I know all about the scientific method, and who invented it, and how science research works in theory, and how it works in the real world.

Unless you have a graduate degree in the sciences, I most likely know as much as you do, possibly more, about ToE and some other science disciplines.

This isn't likely to work out for you then...

SelfSim · Apr 11, 2021

chad kincham said:
Incorrect.

I know all about the scientific method, and who invented it, and how science research works in theory, and how it works in the real world.

.. in other words: "I've never directly experienced the principles of Applied or Theoretical Physics, Biology or Chemistry in action, first hand'.

chad kincham said:
Unless you have a graduate degree in the sciences, I most likely know as much as you do, possibly more, about ToE and some other science disciplines.

Having the qualifications means zip once one has acquired them.
Walking the talk is a life-long post-grad committment, regardless of the qualifications phase.
The most useful experience follows but still requires the fundamentals as a prerequisite for actually practicing (and recognising) scientific thinking.

Speedwell · Apr 11, 2021

chad kincham said:
I know all about the scientific method, and who invented it, and how science research works in theory, and how it works in the real world.

Then why do you attribute to us a greater degree of certainty about scientific conclusions than we actually possess? You said,

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

as if it was some kind of a refutation. Why is that?

Subduction Zone · Apr 11, 2021

chad kincham said:
Incorrect.

I know all about the scientific method, and who invented it, and how science research works in theory, and how it works in the real world.

Unless you have a graduate degree in the sciences, I most likely know as much as you do, possibly more, about ToE and some other science disciplines.

Watch Ben Stein’s documentary: Expelled - no intelligence allowed, about evolutionists being extremely biased.

No, you seriously do not understand it. Your posts keep indicating that. And you clearly do not understand scientific evidence. Just for fun, what do you say that we go over the basics?

And once again you refer to a liar. A man that like Ray Comfort dishonestly edited interviews after they were taken. Alarms should be going off when the only people that you can find that support your claims are liars and fools.

Mr Laurier · Apr 12, 2021

chad kincham said:
Incorrect.

I know all about the scientific method, and who invented it, and how science research works in theory, and how it works in the real world.

Unless you have a graduate degree in the sciences, I most likely know as much as you do, possibly more, about ToE and some other science disciplines.

Watch Ben Stein’s documentary: Expelled - no intelligence allowed, about evolutionists being extremely biased.

Stein sells his fame to the worst bidder and plays the role he was hired for.
There are no "evolutionists".

Frank Robert · Apr 12, 2021

chad kincham said:
Science research is not religious assumption.

I agree but you are not doing research.

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

Which does not stop science from understanding the cell.
Scientists built a perfectly self-replicating synthetic cell

Frank Robert · Apr 12, 2021

chad kincham said:
Incorrect.

I know all about the scientific method, and who invented it, and how science research works in theory, and how it works in the real world.

Unless you have a graduate degree in the sciences, I most likely know as much as you do, possibly more, about ToE and some other science disciplines.

Watch Ben Stein’s documentary: Expelled - no intelligence allowed, about evolutionists being extremely biased.

Ben Stein's Expelled Exposed

A film challenging evolution by game show host and financial analyst Ben Stein
is a case study in antiscience propaganda

AV1611VET · Apr 12, 2021

Mr Laurier said:
There are no "evolutionists".

An evolutionist is that subset of the human race that believes in or supports the theory of evolution.

The term employs Occam's Razor to simplify a conversation on the subject.

Labels aren't your enemy.

Bradskii · Apr 12, 2021

AV1611VET said:
An evolutionist is that subset of the human race that believes in or supports the theory of evolution.

The term employs Occam's Razor to simplify a conversation on the subject.

Labels aren't your enemy.

I was talking to a religionist earlier and he disagreed with you.

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

Well-Known Member

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Hood was a loser.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Hood was a loser.

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Old age should burn and rave at close of day;

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency