Compelling and Convincing Evidence that Life was Created! What Say You?, page 51

Pages: << 48 49 50 51 52 53 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 32 times

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 10:25 AM by Miccey

Any religion no matter, is only wishfull thinking
and fear of his/hers own abilitys and
RESPONSIBILITY..

Its all about FEAR..
Fear of dying
Fear of not getting to "heaven" when you do die
Fear of repricutions if you do something you maybe shouldnt do
Fear of the UNKNOWN

And this is Exploited by priests.
They gain POWER
They gain MONEY
They LURE respect to themselfs

And to any creationist, im sorry if i ofend any.
Not my intention..
Its gonna take a WHOLE LOT more to get me...

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 10:29 AM by dusty1

reply to post by iterationzero

Three people, all in different places in the United States, each have the winning ticket to a lottery jackpot exceeding half a billion dollars. They have those winning tickets by "blind chance", each one of those three with odds on the order of 1 in 10^8 of having a winning ticket.

And, yet, it happened.

You mean a mathematical lottery system ,designed by intelligent people, to be played by intelligent lifeforms, who spent years in school to learn skills to work and earn money to be able to participate in the lottery, who then choose numbers or decide to have a computer that was designed by intelligent scientists, to randomly create numbers within the parameter of the game?

You mean a mathematical lottery game designed to eventually have a winner?

Yet it just "happened"?????

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 10:38 AM by MrXYZ

reply to post by dusty1

Plenty of natural examples too...like people getting hit by lightning

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 10:47 AM by vasaga

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 11:15 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by vasaga
Ok. RNA=/=DNA, but, let's say you're right. Why is it right to conclude that human words and human languages come from intelligent humans, but that the code in the DNA/RNA does not come from any intelligence whatsoever?

From the objective observations of the article I linked (and references therein), one can get an understanding of how the genetic code could have developed naturally sans intelligent guidance. The part about making definite conclusions is, however, left for the reader. In my opinion, the most interesting part of the evolution of the genetic code is phase 1, which presumably happened in a prebiotic RNA world prior to the last universal common ancestor of extant organisms. Objective evidence points to this being the phase where the triplet nature of the code was established, but since this happened over 3.7 billion years ago, it's rather challenging to obtain high certainty of what exactly occurred. The point here is, that it's incorrect to conclude that the code was designed, since there are also natural pathways into its establishment. It's also incorrect to conclude that the code definitely evolved, at least in the sense that it's scientifically impossible to rule out inference of magical beings (but there, the burden of proof lies upon the person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims). In the end, making an informed decision on the matter falls between understanding the natural pathways that could have led to the code, or assuming that a magical being made it. In such case, one should try to keep in mind that the magical being introduces infinite additional complexity into the matter, and demands an even larger explanation, i.e. how it came to be. If on the other hand it was assumed that magical beings can just exist, a much smaller leap of faith would be to say that the conditions simply were there for the genetic code to evolve naturally, as hypothesized. Furthermore, always keep in mind that a gap in scientific knowledge is in no way a pro for a deity, and even loss so a pro for a specific deity..

edit on 1-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 01:50 PM by edmc^2

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

Three people, all in different places in the United States, each have the winning ticket to a lottery jackpot exceeding half a billion dollars. They have those winning tickets by "blind chance", each one of those three with odds on the order of 1 in 10^8 of having a winning ticket.

And, yet, it happened.

If your understanding of the chemical reactions that go into forming amino acids and DNA/RNA bases -- reactions which take place with elements formed in some of the earliest stages of stellar nucleosynthesis -- is so limited that your mind can only equate them with "blind chance", and your personal definition of "blind chance" essentially boils down to "so improbable that it could not possibly have happened" even though improbable things happen as a matter of course, then I'd argue that the problem isn't really with science's explanation of things.

sorry but equating the probability of winning the lottery to the probability of creating life by chance is nonsense.

Here let me show you.

Below is a report on the probability of the winning the Chicago lottery:

The odds of winning are about 1 in 176 million, lottery officials said. All together, Americans spent $1 billion for a chance to win the Mega Millions jackpot.

abclocal.go.com.../national_world&id=8602754

Question to you:

What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

Just to give you an idea of what your "blind chance" is against, consider the following facts:

It's common knowledge that proteins serve as structural materials and others as enzymes. The enzymes in turn speed up needed chemical reactions in the cell. But without such help (from the enzymes), the cell would die.

Interestingly the cell needs not just a few, but 2,000 proteins serving as enzymes.

So my question to you is what are the chances of obtaining all of these at random?

hint: watch the video in the OP, the answer in there.

If you know the answer, which one will likely to happen - winning a lottery or creating life by chance events?

I await your intelligent response.

tc.

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 04:33 PM by iterationzero

reply to post by dusty1

You mean a mathematical lottery system ,designed by intelligent people, to be played by intelligent lifeforms, who spent years in school to learn skills to work and earn money to be able to participate in the lottery, who then choose numbers or decide to have a computer that was designed by intelligent scientists, to randomly create numbers within the parameter of the game?

You mean a mathematical lottery game designed to eventually have a winner?

Yet it just "happened"?????

We're comparing probabilities of event occurring, the systems are irrelevant. Ed is using the expression "blind chance" as shorthand for "anything that Ed feels might be improbably based on statistics". If Ed were viewing this objectively he would see that every event is improbable regardless of whether we're talking about a man-made process or a natural one. If I take a deck of cards, shuffle them, and deal every single card out in a row, the odds of me dealing those cards in that exact sequence is on the order of 1 in 10^67. By Ed's logic, it's "blind chance" and therefore so improbable that it must be impossible. Yet it just happened.

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 04:47 PM by iterationzero

reply to post by edmc^2

sorry but equating the probability of winning the lottery to the probability of creating life by chance is nonsense.

As usual, you missed the point completely. I wasn't equating the odds. I was pointing out that things you choose to define as "blind chance" i.e. "anything that Ed feels might be improbable based on statistics" aren't impossible, simply improbably. Any sequence of events you care to name is, ultimately, improbable. Yet those sequences of events still happen.

What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

How hard is it to get amino acids to polymerize into a polypeptide? Not very. Good luck stopping them from doing so. If that's your concept of "blind chance", you need to go learn some basic organic chemistry.

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 08:05 PM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

You're asking the wrong question. RNA life precedes RNA & protein life. So the real question is, what is the chance of a simple auto-catalytic RNA molecule forming in an organic soup. It's something like this. It's basically already happening in the laboratory. How about that?

edit on 1-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 10:55 PM by edmc^2

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by edmc^2

sorry but equating the probability of winning the lottery to the probability of creating life by chance is nonsense.

As usual, you missed the point completely. I wasn't equating the odds. I was pointing out that things you choose to define as "blind chance" i.e. "anything that Ed feels might be improbable based on statistics" aren't impossible, simply improbably. Any sequence of events you care to name is, ultimately, improbable. Yet those sequences of events still happen.

What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

How hard is it to get amino acids to polymerize into a polypeptide? Not very. Good luck stopping them from doing so. If that's your concept of "blind chance", you need to go learn some basic organic chemistry.

I thought your point in using the lottery game is to show that life can happen randomly?

If so let me ask my question again:

What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

or to use your line of thought - how hard is it to get amino acids to polymerize into a polypeptide randomly?

After all you believe that life appeared randomly - by chance, unless I got it wrong.

If so please let me know, if not my question stands.

tc.

note:

polypeptide - chain of essential life substances.

reply posted on 1-4-2012 @ 11:02 PM by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

You're asking the wrong question. RNA life precedes RNA & protein life. So the real question is, what is the chance of a simple auto-catalytic RNA molecule forming in an organic soup. It's something like this. It's basically already happening in the laboratory. How about that?
edit on 1-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

the key word is RANDOM.

so let me ask my question again in case iterationzero ignores my question again.

What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

BTW you said:

It's basically already happening in the laboratory.

repeating the word LABORATORY - is this a random event or a guided controlled event?

If it's controlled - who's controlling it?

tc.

edit on 1-4-2012 by edmc^2 because: add - word

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 05:01 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
so let me ask my question again in case iterationzero ignores my question again.

What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

What's the point of answering your question, if you ignore the reply? I already said in my previous post that RNA life precedes RNA & protein life, and thus the question you're asking is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Beginning of life was not about proteins, but auto-catalytic RNA molecules.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's basically already happening in the laboratory.

repeating the word LABORATORY - is this a random event or a guided controlled event?

It's a spontaneous reaction. For more details check the link. As for probabilities. Always keep in mind that there can be trillions upon trillions of concurrent chemical reactions happening any given second. So however low the probability of some specific thing happening, it's eventually overcome by the numbers..

edit on 2-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 05:54 AM by iterationzero

reply to post by edmc^2

I thought your point in using the lottery game is to show that life can happen randomly?

I'm sorry that I spelled it out as explicitly as possible for you and you still missed the point. If all you got from it is that "life can happen randomly", then you have tunnel vision on the subject to an astounding degree.

What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

But, once again, they're not forming "randomly" or by "blind chance". The chemical reactions are governed by natural laws.

or to use your line of thought - how hard is it to get amino acids to polymerize into a polypeptide randomly?

Once again, based on your own question, you don't seem to have a basic grasp of amino acid chemistry, peptide bond formation, or what a polypeptide really is, or that it's not "random" given the entire context of the discussion so far has been related to mRNA. You're asking the chemistry equivalent of, "If we evolved from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?"

After all you believe that life appeared randomly - by chance, unless I got it wrong.

Given that you're moving the goalposts from proteins forming via "blind chance" or "randomly" when we're clearly talking about natural nonrandom processes to life forming "randomly" or by "blind chance", you're not only getting it wrong, you're being dishonest about it.

polypeptide - chain of essential life substances.

Another example of you redefining already defined words to suit your argument.

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 09:29 AM by Cataclysm

reply to post by rhinoceros

... the burden of proof lies upon the person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims.

Like the proponents of abiogenesis?

After 150 yrs. since Darwin, and who-knows-how-many billions of dollars spent on research efforts to create life in a laboratory, no one has been able to accomplish it (inorganic matter into organic matter).

Abiogenesis has no scientific basis, thus, those promoting it have the "burden of proof".

Yet, what we hear from the atheists/materialists is: "That life sprung from inorganic matter is a fact... prove us wrong."

I'd say we have a double standard when it comes to applying the burden of proof.

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 09:38 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Cataclysm
reply to post by rhinoceros

... the burden of proof lies upon the person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims.

Like the proponents of abiogenesis?

It's not scientifically unfalsifiable claim. On the contrary great steps have been taken towards showing that it's possible.

After 150 yrs. since Darwin, and who-knows-how-many billions of dollars spent on research efforts to create life in a laboratory, no one has been able to accomplish it (inorganic matter into organic matter).

I doubt even 100 million dollars have been spent on research efforts to create life in a laboratory. Nonetheless, we are almost there with auto-catalytic RNA molecules, 150 years after Origin of Species, but only 50 years after the discovery of DNA. Likewise, we have found natural pathways for the formation of all four (or most, haven't checked the literature lately) nucleosides. Then there's all the objective evidence hinting gradual evolution of the genetic code.

Abiogenesis has no scientific basis, thus, those promoting it have the "burden of proof".

It has a scientific basis. Burden of proof is being assessed in laboratories as we speak. Note that nobody is claiming it to be an absolute truth, science can't prove such things. It's not an absolute truth that something big hit Yucatan 65 million years ago either, although lots of stuff certainly points to it..

edit on 2-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 09:45 AM by Barcs

Originally posted by Cataclysm
After 150 yrs. since Darwin, and who-knows-how-many billions of dollars spent on research efforts to create life in a laboratory, no one has been able to accomplish it (inorganic matter into organic matter).

Abiogenesis has no scientific basis, thus, those promoting it have the "burden of proof".

Yet, what we hear from the atheists/materialists is: "That life sprung from inorganic matter is a fact... prove us wrong."

I'd say we have a double standard when it comes to applying the burden of proof.

People aren't claiming that abiogenesis is 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. They are saying there is more evidence behind it than for a creator. Simple science 101. Stop attacking science, it doesn't help your cause. Science is at least looking for the answer, while you guys just assume you already have it. promote your religion through positivity, not deception.

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 11:13 AM by edmc^2

reply to post by iterationzero

The chemical reactions are governed by natural laws..

Great - finally got the answer that I'm looking for.

So let me get this crystal clear before you keep accusing of missing the point:

The power that be or to be precise - the CAUSAL force behind the existence of life according to iterationzero is/are natural laws.

Correct?

tc.

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 11:24 AM by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
so let me ask my question again in case iterationzero ignores my question again.

What is the chance of a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup?

What's the point of answering your question, if you ignore the reply? I already said in my previous post that RNA life precedes RNA & protein life, and thus the question you're asking is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Beginning of life was not about proteins, but auto-catalytic RNA molecules.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by rhinoceros
It's basically already happening in the laboratory.

repeating the word LABORATORY - is this a random event or a guided controlled event?

It's a spontaneous reaction. For more details check the link. As for probabilities. Always keep in mind that there can be trillions upon trillions of concurrent chemical reactions happening any given second. So however low the probability of some specific thing happening, it's eventually overcome by the numbers..
edit on 2-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

OK - just to make this clear:

The pre-cursor of life is the what you call "auto-catalytic RNA molecules" and this molecule appeared by means of "spontaneous reaction".

I take it too that you agree with iterationzero that the power that be or the CAUSAL force that created the "auto-catalytic RNA molecules" is/are natural laws.

Correct?

tx.

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 11:58 AM by rhinoceros

Originally posted by edmc^2
I take it too that you agree with iterationzero that the power that be or the CAUSAL force that created the "auto-catalytic RNA molecules" is/are natural laws.

I don't know, if the above is what happened. However, from all the alternatives, I find it the most likely explanation, as it has already been demonstrated possible (to a large degree), and it doesn't require magic, which would make the explanation infinitely more complex. If you want to call natural laws "God", be my guest. You'll be in good company, as Einstein basically did that too. Just keep in mind, that it has nothing to do with the many personal Gods of ancient mythologies. This God doesn't break the natural laws, on the contrary this God is the natural laws. Big difference.

edit on 2-4-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 2-4-2012 @ 11:59 AM by iterationzero

reply to post by edmc^2

The power that be or to be precise - the CAUSAL force behind the existence of life according to iterationzero is/are natural laws.

No, we weren't talking about the "causal force behind the existence of life". We were talking about the chemical reactions that govern the formation of polypeptides. This is the third time you've done this, so I can only assume that it's not an error on your part and that you're being intentionally dishonest. I'll start replying to your posts again when you show signs of having grown a sense of integrity when dealing with others. It's a shame that I have to tell a theist to act ethically in a conversation.