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

[Subduction Zone]

Hubert Yockey was another non-expert:

Hubert Yockey - Wikipedia

That is two failures. I am not sure if I can find someone with the generic name of "Axe".

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

But someone will, and that's the whole point. Even for the winner, they still were very unlikely to win, until they did.

 

[Speedwell]

Hubert Yockey was another non-expert:

Hubert Yockey - Wikipedia

That is two failures. I am not sure if I can find someone with the generic name of "Axe".

Douglas Axe. He is, in fact, a molecular biologist though he hasn't published much in that field. He is the Director of the Biologic Institute, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OOh! I found "Axe". Unfortunately he lost all credibility. He works for the Discovery Institute. Another organization where one has to dump the scientific method to work there. If you want to know how long they have had a reputation for dishonesty you should look into the Dover Trial and their part in that epic creationist failure.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #8: Douglas Axe

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

They aren't because there is no such way to calculate the odds.

 

[Hans Blaster]

He is the Director of the Biologic Institute, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute.

That makes him a professional. (Liar that is.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Douglas Axe. He is, in fact, a molecular biologist though he hasn't published much in that field. He is the Director of the Biologic Institute, a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute.

I took too long to post my response.

But yeah, a real scientist, and even his work refutes the claims of "random" assembly.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Here we go again...

No. The odds of a wining ticket is 1:1. A winner is selected for each lottery. You want a specific winner. Then how many times is the lottery drawn? Every hour? In which case you'll have a specific winner every 11 million years. Ridiculously low odds in the scheme of things. In the time we have for the process to run it'll happen about 500 times.

And to suggest that 'the draw' is only done once an hour is nonsensical. This is 'a draw' that happens gazzillions of times every second - planet wide.

And each 'draw' only needs something to approximate life, not to end up with something with all it's characteristics. Your odds are guaranteeing a result.

You really are impressed with Very Large Numbers. But you understand nothing about how they are generated and what they signify.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go again...

No. The odds of a wining ticket is 1:1. A winner is selected for each lottery. You want a specific winner. Then how many times is the lottery drawn? Every hour? In which case you'll have a specific winner every 11 million years. Ridiculously low odds in the scheme of things. In the time we have for the process to run it'll happen about 500 times.

And to suggest that 'the draw' is only done once an hour is nonsensical. This is 'a draw' that happens gazzillions of times every second - planet wide.

And each 'draw' only needs something to approximate life, not to end up with something with all it's characteristics. Your odds are guaranteeing a result.

You really are impressed with Very Large Numbers. But you understand nothing about how they are generated and what they signify.

Close but not quite. There are many lotteries that "roll-over". If no one wins the pot continually grows. What we find instead is that the odds of their being a winner for a lottery quickly approaches one. It is possible to sell more tickets than there are possible entries. Combinations are not exclusive. They are based either a random pick when one buys it or it could be numbers that a person has chosen. That is why sometimes there are multiple winners of one lottery.

Still the lottery is a good example to use because sooner or later there always is a winner.

 

[VirOptimus]

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.

What are the odds of Tampa Bay Lightning being Stanley Cup champions 2020?

 

[SelfSim]

The evolution of autocatalytic sets in molecular replication, (ie: Abiogenesis), isa 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.

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

Unravelling how the complexity of living systems can (have) emerge(d) from simple chemical reactions is one of the grand challenges in contemporary science. Evolving systems of self‐replicating molecules may hold the key to this question. Here we show that, when a system of replicators is subjected to a regime where replication competes with replicator destruction, simple and fast replicators can give way to more complex and slower ones. The structurally more complex replicator was found to be functionally more proficient in the catalysis of a model reaction. These results show that chemical fueling can maintain systems of replicators out of equilibrium, populating more complex replicators that are otherwise not readily accessible. Such complexification represents an important requirement for achieving open‐ended evolution as it should allow improved and ultimately also new functions to emerge.

 

[SelfSim]

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

However, whole cell biochemical process models have already been developed .. ie: the tested knowledge is there.

Life-functional artificial DNA has also been developed and tested in the lab.

Artificial functional ribozymes have also been created.

..

Oh .. and the other key research on:
i) constraint closure in open non equilibrium systems, was done by Monteville and Mossio and;
ii) phase transitions of autocataytic sets, was done by Erdos And Renyl.
(Haven't got handy links/references to the above relevant papers/work, just yet).

Stuart Kauffman used (i) and (ii) above in his work on his Autocatalytic Set Abiogenesis Hypothesis , too.

 

[Gene2memE]

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.

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.

 

[SelfSim]

.. 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.
...
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.

.. and on Earth, putative ancestral sulfur and methanogenic life metabolisms already had the necessary prebiotic chemical conditions 3.5 billion years ago: Preconditions for life already present 3.5 billion years ago

 

[Frank Robert]

That’s a smokescreen, to call the truth anti science.

Truth does not conflict with science, but some beliefs do.

The evidence for design, as Paul Davies admits, has become overwhelming.

I have no doubt that the evidence for design is overwhelming for Paul Davies, just as I have no doubt it is underwhelming for many others.

The Big Bang was a supernatural event, the universe is designed for life, and DNA is the signature of God that proves to unbiased minds, that God exists and is the creator.

I believe that that God may have set the laws of nature into motion with the big bang.

The real deniers of science are those who are still trying to prove that nothing became everything.

I think most scientists would agree that they do not know what triggered the big bang. The theoretical physicist Sean Carroll suggests that there might not be an absolute answer to why it exists.

 

[Speedwell]

What are the odds of Tampa Bay Lightning being Stanley Cup champions 2020?

Improved, as the 'Canes lost to a vastly inferior team last night.

 

[Frank Robert]

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.

There are several hypotheses for OOL, we may never know how but that is no reason for scientists to give up before trying.

 

[Frank Robert]

Abiogenesis odds get higher every year as more is learned about how incredibly complex even the simplest cell is, so time isn’t helping you refute the facts.

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

 

[driewerf]

"Remind the believers to submit to the government and its officers. They should be obedient, always ready to do what is good. Titus 3:1

"Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God." Romans 13:1

Oh? All authority? Stalin? Hitler? Franco?
King George? How about he American revolutionaries? Didn't they then rebel against these two verses you quoted?

 

[VirOptimus]

Improved, as the 'Canes lost to a vastly inferior team last night.

No, read the year.