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

[Subduction Zone]

Nice attempt at deflection from the fact that even many evolutionists today admit DNA is a biological programming language code that all cells have as their operating system, containing specified and complex information, and that language and information only come from an intelligent mind.

They really don't At least not in the sense that you are using the term. And no, "specified and complex information" is just a garbage term that creationists use. They cannot properly define it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The odds that life appeared on earth are 1:1.

The odds that life appeared because of random bonding of chemicals in a prebiotic soup: beyond impossible.

And THAT’S how probability works.

Whew!! It is a good thing that abiogenesis does not rely on that then.

 

[chad kincham]

The evolution of autocatalytic sets in molecular replication, (ie: Abiogenesis), is a function of time .. which is supported by evidence of the complexity seen in the simplest cells.

Wrong. As Professor James Tour points out, the organic chemicals required for abiogenesis degrade very quickly, so time works against it, not for it.

That’s why researchers in labs have to stop chemical processes and remove them from the apparatus before they polymerize., when they create them.

 

[chad kincham]

Whew!! It is a good thing that abiogenesis does not rely on that then.

There’s a long list of evolutionists who disagree with you.

 

[SelfSim]

Wrong. As Professor James Tour points out, the organic chemicals required for abiogenesis degrade very quickly, so time works against it, not for it.

That’s why researchers in labs have to stop chemical processes and remove them from the apparatus before they polymerize., when they create them.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There’s a long list of evolutionists who disagree with you.

There really is not. If there were you would have posted them.

The problem appears to be in your understanding. When someone tries to claim that abiogenesis is "random" they demonstrate that they do not understand the laws of chemistry. One of the reasons that all of the odds arguments fail is because they are all strawman argument. Identify the strawman and the argument fails without any math being done at all. Reactions are not "random". They are very limited.

 

[SelfSim]

There’s a long list of evolutionists who disagree with you.

Who cares? (Even if there is).
(Its not like they carry the word of God or anything ..)

 

[chad kincham]

No, the odds are still 1:1.

Odds of 1 in 97 billion are infinitesimally small.

Do you even know how statistics work?

If they sell 16 million lottery tickets and you buy 1 ticket, the odds of winning are 1 in 16 million - very poor odds.

The odds that organic chemicals can become a living cell are between 1 in 97 billion and up, which is impossible odds.

 

[Speedwell]

There’s a long list of evolutionists who disagree with you.

Can you name some--abiogenesis researchers who believe that the first living cell assembled spontaneously from organic chemicals?

 

[chad kincham]

There really is not. If there were you would have posted them.

The problem appears to be in your understanding. When someone tries to claim that abiogenesis is "random" they demonstrate that they do not understand the laws of chemistry. One of the reasons that all of the odds arguments fail is because they are all strawman argument. Identify the strawman and the argument fails without any math being done at all. Reactions are not "random". They are very limited.

These are evolutionist calculating the odds, so the straw man argument is yours.

 

[Subduction Zone]

These are evolutionist calculating the odds, so the straw man argument is yours.

No, they really are not. Those are creationist arguments.

But don't trust me. Post a source that claims that and we will see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you name some--abiogenesis researchers who believe that the first living cell assembled spontaneously from organic chemicals?

So far he only appears to have incorrect claims that he will not support.

 

[AV1611VET]

The odds that organic chemicals can become a living cell are between 1 in 97 billion and up, which is impossible odds.

If God says otherwise, the odds of it happening are 1 in 0.

 

[Speedwell]

These are evolutionist calculating the odds, so the straw man argument is yours.

Can you name any?

 

[chad kincham]

Can you name some--abiogenesis researchers who believe that the first living cell assembled spontaneously from non-living chemicals?

Look up abiogenesis in the dictionary.

By definition abiogenesis research is researching chemical evolution by organic chemicals randomly bonding together.

 

[chad kincham]

1 to the 97 billionth power is 1, so you may be nearer to the mark than you thought. I'm not going to ask where you got this number from; I suspect that it was a scientist who was teasing you and making fun of your ignorance of mathematics.

The odds are 1 in 97 billion for the simplest cell to form in any. prebiotic scenario.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look up abiogenesis in the dictionary.

By definition abiogenesis research is researching chemical evolution by organic chemicals randomly bonding together.

LOL!!! You never go to a non-technical source in a technical debate. Dictionaries simplify concepts too far to be of any use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The odds are 1 in 97 billion for the simplest cell to form in any. prebiotic scenario.

Correction, in any strawman version of abiogenesis.

Find someone that works in the science. What non-experts say does not really matter. Especially since almost all of them get even the basics wrong.

 

[chad kincham]

Can you name any?

Yockey, Fred Hoyle, Axe, and others.

 

[Speedwell]

Look up abiogenesis in the dictionary.

By definition abiogenesis research is researching chemical evolution by organic chemicals randomly bonding together.

This is the first hit I got:
Abiogenesis: the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.

Nothing there about "randomly bonding together." In fact, I can't find a definition which says that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yockey, Fred Hoyle, Axe, and others.

Fred Hoyle was a physicist. His opinion would be no more valid than mine. This is what happens when people do not understand the scientific method. You need to find experts in the field. Not physicists or dentists.