Abiogenesis and Probabilities

[DrNoGods]

I'm creating a new thread here to continue debate on a post made by EarthScience guy on another thread (Science and Religion > Artificial life: can it be created?, post 17). This post challenged probability calculations in an old Talkorigins article that I had linked in that thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Are the arguments (on creationist views) and probabilities presented reasonable in the Talkorigins article? If not, why not?

[Noose001]

No. Biochemistry is chemistry that simply refers to those processes involving mostly organic molecules occurring in living things. Those reactions are all governed by the same physical and chemical properties of matter. There is no other 'special' ingredient involved in biochemical reactions.

I believe biochemistry is chemistry supported by LIFE.
This means life is a separate entity from the chemical reactions. Chemical reactions follow all phyisico-chemical laws such as 2nd law of thermodynamics, biochemical processes do not. In fact, biochemical processes are shielded from the environment (physical laws).

[Noose001]

They don't happen in the presence of life. They are interconnected processes that maintain life. Remove any components or break the chain and the processes of life can no longer continue. Other processes, such as decay reactions, are able to take over. There is no magical ingredient called life that needs to be present.

That's why i said physical reality (includes chemical reaction) is an illusion. There's a form of reality that forms the basis of all reality which i believe is consciousness (life).

Does the brain create the mind or the mind create the brain?

[Noose001]

What other position am I criticising? I don't know precisely how or when abiogenesis occurred, but what I know of chemistry and the history of this planet allows me to conclude that it is possible and did indeed occur. What alternative would you suggest best explains the chemistry of life we observe?

Again, if you don't know Time, don't say 'once upon a time'. Agian, past is not real and therefore abiogenesis is just a story.

I offer you creation.

[Noose001]

Of course they are. There are even machines that can be used to multiply trace amounts of DNA for use in forensic analysis. Organic molecules are based on the chemistry of carbon, with hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen being the other major component elements. If we struggle to make them without the assistance or organisms it's mainly because biological catalysts make things far easier than trying to find and use other types. It is not that there is a magical ingredient called life involved.

Oh yes, there's a special ingredient called life.

Q. What is the difference between a freshly dead cat and a living cat?

[Noose001]

Everything the virus does is meant to preserve its life.

Not exactly. The virus is governed by the chemistry that ensures that it replicates, not that the virus itself stays alive.

When talking about nature, avoid terms such as 'ensure' which shows knowledge of the outcome, not unless it is a living creature which has purpose.

[Noose001]

I'd reject the the "everything is simple" argument, as it exposes one to being unable to consider something in more unique, different, interesting, complex, or other ways.

That said, to propose that complexity can't be explained through natural means is a bit off. Sure, scientists ain't got em all the answers, but that shouldn't mean we oughta throw our hands up and declare, "Ain't ol' God there something."

So far cam't be explained through natural means, so?
Do we wait? My impatient self doesn't accept this especially when i'm aware that physical reality is a hoax. Means we have been wrong from the beginning.

[JoeyKnothead]

I'd reject the the "everything is simple" argument, as it exposes one to being unable to consider something in more unique, different, interesting, complex, or other ways.

That said, to propose that complexity can't be explained through natural means is a bit off. Sure, scientists ain't got em all the answers, but that shouldn't mean we oughta throw our hands up and declare, "Ain't ol' God there something."

So far cam't be explained through natural means, so?

So we're no closer to solving that there than we are in figuring out what it is the women are up to.

Do we wait?

Either wait, or set to find out.

My impatient self doesn't accept this especially when i'm aware that physical reality is a hoax.

Get up in the middle of the night and stumble towards the fridgidaire for a nice cold glass of milk, only don't turn on the lights, and stub your toe on the coffee table there, and you'll see that physical reality is quite real, and can be quite painful.

Means we have been wrong from the beginning.

Naw, just when ya got to that last bit there.

[JoeyKnothead]

Oh yes, there's a special ingredient called life.

Q. What is the difference between a freshly dead cat and a living cat?

A freshly dead cat can be reliably predicted to not sit around for three days, then hop up and stroll into town.

And pretty thing won't make ya bury that last'n there.

[Noose001]

Get up in the middle of the night and stumble towards the fridgidaire for a nice cold glass of milk, only don't turn on the lights, and stub your toe on the coffee table there, and you'll see that physical reality is quite real, and can be quite painful.

Pain is a part of the physical reality which is what i believe is an illusion, so?!!

[JoeyKnothead]

Get up in the middle of the night and stumble towards the fridgidaire for a nice cold glass of milk, only don't turn on the lights, and stub your toe on the coffee table there, and you'll see that physical reality is quite real, and can be quite painful.

Pain is a part of the physical reality which is what i believe is an illusion, so?!!

So, if physical reality is an illusion, how come it hurts to fetch a toe into it?

If physical reality is an illusion, that coffee table, and that toe ain't really there. Nor the pain of the two meeting abruptly on a cold and stormy night.