Those single celled organisms are the product of over 3.5 billion years of evolution, a mechanism that can increase intelligence and complexity.
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.
It's even more unlikely than most realize since the behaviors of even single celled organisms are 'intelligent'.
I'm saying the experiment can never be used to prove that it doesnt have some degree of dependence on the experimenter and can never be used to dispute life is not a product intelligent design.
you fail to understand the scope of such experiments. They are conducted in order to understand the processes that take effect. Once the processes are understood then science can begin to understand the natural processes that can give rise to life. If we don't understand a process then we cannot come to a valid conclusion. This has nothing whatsoever to do with interaction of any intelligent being. Also the very notion that life came to be spontaneously is ludicrous and such fallacies are spread by creationists and not by science.No to you first question. I'm saying the experiment can never be used to prove that it doesnt have some degree of dependence on the experimenter and can never be used to dispute life is not a product intelligent design. In addition it will never prove it was spotaneous.
Let's say you have to mix two fluids togther to produce life, each in its own test tube. A being has to combine those fluids. It doesn't matter how they do it. It still requires interaction as a result of their intelligent actions.
I think this speaks volumes to how some people approach the question of how life started.
This isn't about looking objectively at the evidence of how life could begin through natural processes. This is about producing enough doubt through smoke and mirrors to protect cherished beliefs that are themselves completely unevidenced.
Each grain will follow the laws of physics. The hand that pushes the sand has an uneven surface and the sand grains are in a disorganised pack. A super computer can actually simulate the trajectory of each grain of sand.
Basically the more data one has the more accurate one will be able to calculate.
Everything in this universe must follow the laws of physics. This is a fact.
Which doesn't imply sentient involvement, intent or purpose in a way, shape or form.
The shape of planets isn't random. Once a certain critical point is reached, a sphere is the only possible outcome. The "organizer" of this non-random shape is not a god, soul or undetectable 7-headed dragon. It's just gravity.
I guess the answer to that would be that the laws of nature are deterministic. In that sense, the movement of objects in space can be accurately predicted if all the gravitational influences are known. If you drop an apple, it doesn't shoot into a random direction - it only falls down. And it doesn't fall at a random speed, it falls at 9.81 meters per second per second, slowed down by the resistance that applies at that altitude and due to the shape of the apple etc.
It seems to me that you simply ignore all this.
A formula which will include variables for the force used to throw them up, the angle at which they are thrown, the gravitational force of the earth, the shape of the surface on which they fall, the density of that surface, the density of the grains of sand, their mass, etc etc.
If you have all this information, you can perfectly calculate the exact location of every single grain thrown.
And here's the fun part: you could do that calculation with any input variable. The angle and the throwing force could be random and it wouldn't change anything about the formula. Only the location would change because the input variables did.
You are wrong! Here read this excerpt from Uncertainty PrincipleYou guys are forgetting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that shows you can't perfectly predict a physical system like that.
FYI, if you're going to allow for the concept of microscopic life to have formed spontaneously based upon a combination of "dumb luck" and time,
then you cannot rule out the possibility that the universe itself 'evolved' into a living organism, long before microscopic life formed on Earth.
I tend to agree actually. For all I know life didn't form here on Earth at all, but rather it formed trillions of years ago and just got 'planted here' by a comet or asteroid a few billion years ago.
It is common practice for creationists to downplay natural laws in order to make room for an "Intelligent designer"."Dumb luck", as you put it, is really only a small part of that process. Just like it's only a small part of the process of 2 H atoms and an O atom forming a water molecule. The "dumb luck" part is limited to the atoms meeting eachother in circumstances that allow them to combine into a molecule. The combining itself has nothing to do with "luck" and everything with natural laws.
This makes no sense to me. There isn't a single definition of "life" that is applicable to the universe.
The universe is only 13.7 billion years old. So life did not form "trillions" of years ago. But I'll go ahead and assume that that was just figure of speech on your part.
.
What an exercise in faith. What projection of outcome!
But you are still empty handed in evidence, and a believer "that it happened".
It is sad how people "lean" on Naturalism. And dramatically proselytize others to their faith events..
I know the story, exactly. But without experiments to back it up, that's all it is: a story. And an astonishingly unlikely one at that.
[serious];65275199 said:With a large sample, you will see a logarithmic decay with particles being ejected uniformly, (this is what makes radio-dating so reliable) but each individual decay is entirely random. YOu would not, for example, see a spike in decays as the sample approached it's half life in order to get to that half life.
With any random event, you will be able to plot it and get a general shape as a result of the nature and probabilities of that random event, but is we call anything that can be plotted after the fact non-random, we've just redefined "random" as something that doesn't exist
Am I answering your question?
.
Heisenberg Unncertainty Principle is only concerned with quantum physics and is completely negligible at the scale we are talking about. This is the same as ignoring relativistic effects at everyday velocity calculations.
Irrelevant. This thread isn't about evolution we've seen, but about abiogenesis which we have not.Evolution is not a story. Evolution is a fact.
Random is a funny word. Things occur that we call random events, but they are actually the result of numerous factors. This neither proves or disproves the existence of a greater power, i.e. deity.
Abiogenesis may or may not have occurred on earth, but humans inventing new life from scratch would lend support that it occurred naturally in the past. This neither adds or subtracts from the idea of life evolves yesterday and today.
I dont think so. Its about evaluating all possible inputs into the system and understanding how they have an effect on its output.
Instead of random, we should be using the term "stochastic" which combines randomness and probability (as governed by physical laws). For example, when oxygen reacts with hydrogen you get a random interaction of molecules. However, this does not mean that you have equal probability of producing H3O or H2O. Each potential product has a probability determined by the reaction conditions. It is stochastic.
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?