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?

[JoeyKnothead]

What is your alternative to the mechanisms in the above article?

When one rock sees him another rock he fancies, and she fancies him back, they get married, and then run off to become one just quick as they can.

I said once the body gets large enough it can attract particles more readily in addition to sweeping out smaller particles in its path. But gravity does work on all mass scales.

This'n testable...

Sit on the couch with a big bag of Cheesy Poofs, and watch the particles gather around center mass.


No need to thank me, I try to help out where I can

[brunumb]

There was a source of power the fountains of the deep which was supercritical water. A layer of supercritical water that used to be around 50 km below the surface of the earth.

Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear. Such absurdities don't warrant any debate. The only response to that is to shake one's head, avoid eye contact and slowly back out of the room.

[brunumb]

What is your alternative to the mechanisms in the above article?

There is only one logical mechanism to account for all the weird planets, stars, galaxies and so on. God-magic. How else do you change giant blobs of primordial carefully aligned water molecules into planets? I think I'll go and read Alice in Wonderland for a reality check.

[Bradskii]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #70]

A thousand pardons I did not see this robust explanation of evolution.

We see it in our own families - where we can observe similarities and differences. We're roughly half one parent, and half the other'n in appearance, and of course genetics. So we see the changed genetics.

Oh, you mean like Bradskii and his wife are 0.1% different.

Exactly right. But you seem to be...how shall I say..? Lacking in the necessary knowledge to put forward a convincing argument on this matter. I won't say 'ignorant of the necessary knowledge' because some might take that as a personal insult. So is 'lacking in the necessary knowledge' OK with you?

[BeHereNow]

It was the early 70's as I recall, but may have been late 60's.
Scientists advised us they had the mechanics figured out fairly well. The mechanics (chemical in nature of course) for formation of life, in the lab.
Simply a matter of the proper chemicals, atmospheric conditions, and energy.
Many things that are very, very unlikely in the "real world", become rather common place in the laboratory. That was no secret. And so it was with this "origin of life" stuff, we were advised.
It would not be easy, but scientists were confident they were on the cusp of creating life, in a very real sense. Not a human, or sheep, but a one celled organism with the undisputed elements of 'life'.

Not that decade, or even the next, but certainly in their lifetime.
I imagine they are all dead and gone now.

According to Science, all things are in the realm of possibilities.
Chemical ooze combining together just so, and starting life on earth. Not easy, but certainly possible, according to science.
The hand of god putting the spark of life into chemicals that formed life on earth. Not easy, but certainly possible, according to science.
No proof for either, but either one possible, according to science.

[benchwarmer]

It was the early 70's as I recall, but may have been late 60's.
Scientists advised us they had the mechanics figured out fairly well. The mechanics (chemical in nature of course) for formation of life, in the lab.
Simply a matter of the proper chemicals, atmospheric conditions, and energy.
Many things that are very, very unlikely in the "real world", become rather common place in the laboratory. That was no secret. And so it was with this "origin of life" stuff, we were advised.
It would not be easy, but scientists were confident they were on the cusp of creating life, in a very real sense. Not a human, or sheep, but a one celled organism with the undisputed elements of 'life'.

Not that decade, or even the next, but certainly in their lifetime.
I imagine they are all dead and gone now.

Not sure what the point of that was. Are you complaining that because scientists haven't figured something out yet we have to insert "Goddidit"? Typical god of the gaps thinking it seems.

According to Science, all things are in the realm of possibilities.

Umm, no. Science does not say that. Care to cite some sources for that? Peer reviewed papers preferred.

I'm pretty sure science does not 'say' pink unicorns could emerge from black holes and fly to Earth to hand out cotton candy to rabbits.

Apologists often like to malign science because some of them think it's destroying their favorite religion. Just a PSA (Public Service Announcement), I doubt too many professional scientists waste their time trying to debunk religion. They are too busy trying to generate reproducible data to back up their research on actual problems. Granted, some will spend some of the spare time in places like this, but the main thrust of science is not to kill religion. It will die its own death eventually if it doesn't comport with reality.

[brunumb]

Scientists advised us they had the mechanics figured out fairly well. The mechanics (chemical in nature of course) for formation of life, in the lab.
Simply a matter of the proper chemicals, atmospheric conditions, and energy.

Did they really advise us of that, or is this just another misrepresentation of what really happened? Perhaps you could supply a citation to clarify.

[otseng]

I won't say 'ignorant of the necessary knowledge' because some might take that as a personal insult. So is 'lacking in the necessary knowledge' OK with you?

Moderator Comment

This is still a personal comment. Just stick to the argument without making any comments about posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #86]

"Umm, no. Science does not say that. Care to cite some sources for that? Peer reviewed papers preferred."


That avenue would be nonproductive, and attempts to go down that path would raise more questions than answered.
We can use logic and reason to support my claim.

It is common knowledge that many professional scientists are religionists. They have no objection to any of the doctrines, teachings, assumptions of Science, in both their professional and private lives.
You are free to make the claim that all scientists are atheists, and provide the peer review study to support your counter claim.

As religionists, a common belief they have is “With God, all things are possible.”

So they are at once, a practicing scientist, true to all of the required beliefs of scientists, and and true to their religious convictions, no conflict.
One of these beliefs is that all things are possible.
Science must share this belief.
If in the dogma of science there were a belief that many things were impossible, that would be a conflict, that does not exist.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to benchwarmer in post #86]

"Umm, no. Science does not say that. Care to cite some sources for that? Peer reviewed papers preferred."


That avenue would be nonproductive, and attempts to go down that path would raise more questions than answered.

Do you mean questions like actually supporting your assertions? Yup, afraid so. Support your assertion or it can be disregarded as easily as it was asserted.

We can use logic and reason to support my claim.

I doubt it, but let's see...

It is common knowledge that many professional scientists are religionists.

What is a 'religionist'? Do you mean theist? Yes, many scientists have varying religious beliefs.

They have no objection to any of the doctrines, teachings, assumptions of Science, in both their professional and private lives.

Please cite the 'doctrines' of science. This should be fascinating.

You are completely wrong that there are no objections to 'teachings, assumptions'. The entire field of science is built on attempting to reproduce the claims of others and object when necessary.

You are free to make the claim that all scientists are atheists, and provide the peer review study to support your counter claim.

Why in the world would I claim that?

As religionists, a common belief they have is “With God, all things are possible.”

You mean as a Christian? Are you sure about that? Can this God produce a square circle or a unicorn more powerful than God?

So they are at once, a practicing scientist, true to all of the required beliefs of scientists

Please list for us the required beliefs of scientists. This should also be fascinating.

, and and true to their religious convictions, no conflict.
One of these beliefs is that all things are possible.

Care to produce one of these scientists who thinks all things are possible for us to examine? Papers, quotes, anything?

Science must share this belief.

Opinion noted and rejected. Unless you have a source for this.

If in the dogma of science there were a belief that many things were impossible, that would be a conflict, that does not exist.

Please list for us the dogma of science.

In short, that was a "logic and reason" failure unless you can actually back it up with something other than your opinions.