Does god exist?

[~Twisted]

Look what I found.

Who does this remind you of?
Now if you haven't done this already...
Look at the name.

[PooZy]

Well, I believe in science, but I believe God caused science.
Then they're sinning. Suicide is one of the deadliest sins.

You said God gave people challenges to 'toughen them up', but now you admit he's causing them to sin.
Also how could God 'cause' science? That makes no sense at all. Are you saying that God invented the idea that 1+1=2 as well? To be honest I think logic doesn't need a cause.

[Rammjet]

Why does logic exist; is it because it's internally consistant? [enter the multiverse]

[Husk.]

I just want to point out that there is proof of the big bang (according to my Physics tutor) for example, if you look at your TV screen while it has no signal, you see these black and white dots. According to evidence, these "dots" and the sound given is a signal from the big bang seeing as it was so loud, the echo still lasts.

[PooZy]

I just want to point out that there is proof of the big bang (according to my Physics tutor) for example, if you look at your TV screen while it has no signal, you see these black and white dots. According to evidence, these "dots" and the sound given is a signal from the big bang seeing as it was so loud, the echo still lasts.

Yea the TV is displaying signals from the background cosmic radiation

[Rammjet]

Yea the TV is displaying signals from the background cosmic radiation

[only if it is an analogue television]

[Blackie6789]

Just to let you people know, school is ending and is fairly easy, so for maybe the next week I may be more active. After that, I have sports and like last summer, I probably won't be active at all on JV. Since its not probable that Hawkrawker, or Wolf825 will be replacing me, this thread may die over the next few months. [Unless an active theist starts debating which I doubt.] Anyway, I'll try to post at least once a week, but I won't be active on here too much.

Cells didn't originate with all the modern protein structures they had today, can we just make that clear?

That is correct, the "first cell" would have been less complex than a typical one today. However, think of what it still would require. The basic point remains that you need to have the right amount of amino acids connected together [without left handed amino acids which you still haven't explained], even if you could get proteins which is highly unlikely considering that the chains of amino acids can be easily terminated. Then, you need a way for the proteins to be in the right order. Jonathan Wells said this about basically the same question:
"But my point remains the same-the problem of assembling the right parts in the right way at the right time and at the right place, while keeping out the wrong material, is simply insurmountable.

You can't easily replicate the conditions of a primordial planet perfectly because the scales are geographical; large areas and long time periods are required, rather than test tubes.

In an open condition, DNA wouldn't last much longer than a few years, so you would have to assemble a cell fairly quickly--not in a time period of millions of years.

Since when was everything about replication anyway- a court of law doesn't insist that a murder be repeated in order to justify the guilt of murderer, a set of finger prints on the murder weapon is usually sufficient.

You don't have a "set of finger prints". In other words, you do not have a valid explanation for how life originated on this planet. The fact that intelligent scientists cannot create life in test tubes is even more unconvincing that life originated on its own.
Let me put it another way; if life cannot create new life unnaturally [eg not a form of natural reproduction], then why do you believe life could have formed on its own without ANY intelligence at all?

The tendency actually is more order, because the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to the earth, because the earth is not a closed system [it gets solar energy from the sun and radioactive heating from its core]. Anyway a frog in a blender would actually produce an ecosystem of bacteria and scavengers, but the example is incredibly childish anyway.

I have to say I disagree that the earth is a closed system. The earth is constantly bombarded by the sun, and other radiations. Water vapor is constantly being expelled into space, among many other things. The earth is by no means ‘closed’ it is hugely open to radiation. In fact, according to you, it was so open that a meteor crashed into this apparently closed system and formed the moon! I have to say that the tendency for the earth is disorder; it is already being depleted of many of its natural resources, so saying that the tendency is “more order”, doesn’t seem logical to me.

Your 'hypothetical swamp' is probably based on one of stanley miller's experiments, let's make it clear he has updated his experiments several times since that happened, what you're trying to argue is that 'cakes cannot bake!' because somebody once burnt a cake.

The ‘primordial soup’ I was referring to is actually from Darwin when he said that life could arise in some “warm pool” that is teeming with chemicals all waiting to connect together. Now, however, we know that its not as easy as just throwing some chemicals into a pond and letting it sit for a few years. For one thing, the chemicals would probably break down if they didn’t form something resembling life within 10 years which would really destroy your chance of life forming. For another, there are certain problems with proteins forming, and then assembling the proteins and then making those proteins grow, respond, reproduce, organize itself, etc.
All in all, the idea that life can arise on its own doesn’t seem logical to me.

[Rammjet]

If you still think we're arguing individual cells are assembled over a time period of 'millions of years' there is no limit to your ignorance.

-Furthermore an artifical genome was pieced together, creating a synthetic organism called 'synthia' in 2010, which was a replicant of a wild bacterium. However this isn't of much interest to the abiogenesis theory, because it wasn't in a vessel replicating earth conditions and nor was it a spontaneous reaction- it was a copying process.

-'I have to disagree the earth is a closed system'...I said it was an open system; read my post. The second law of thermodynamics, the one determining order is replaced by entropic disorder, only applies in closed systems. I said it didn't apply on earth because we're an open system, apparantly you agree. [not that you understood this]

-Chemicals don't just 'break down forever' if they don't form life, that's why amino acids exist in space. These chemicals have a natural tendency to form in the right conditions, and they form an equilibirum [that's when chemicals are being formed and broken down at a constant rate].

The only reason complex living chemistry is so strange to you is because you have zilch understanding of it what-so-ever. Your ignorance on the subject is just completely astounding; do you even know what equilibria, condensation polymerisation and zwitter ions are? Do the words 'lipid' 'catalysis' and 'heterogenous' mean nothing to you?






What you're essentially doing is not understanding degree-level science, partly out of forgivable ignorance, but also partly out of stupidity, and then saying 'well it doesn't make sense to me because I can't be bothered to learn the facts straight, so I'll assume a magical God did it- that just about fills my brain up'.

[Suuper]

Blackie, you might want to carefully re-read Rammjet's posts before you reply.

[Rammjet]

From your original post on this subject:
Amino acids form into proteins in natural conditions by a polymerisation reaction...All stages mentioned are observable in their own separate cases, but it takes millions of years for the whole process to be successfully completed, which is why it doesn't happen every time a puddle of acid runs over a soil bed.
In all cells, proteins exist. However, if it takes millions of years for polymerization (eg formation of amino acid strands that according to some scientists may form proteins) to occur [and even then, it only creates small strands of amino acids that can be terminated easily], then how do you expect cells to form in LESS TIME?
You are saying that cells can form in less then millions of years, but the very basis of cells you say takes millions of years to make.

It takes millions of years for a sustainable reaction vessel, and the likelihood of a living reaction, to happen. The actual reactions may only take phemto-seconds. I mean, duh.

For example when our atmosphere filled with oxygen, achieving a stable equilibrium with the land and ocean's oxidation states took millions and millions of years, after which it became possible for aerobic life forms to fully emerge and take advantage of this new atmosphere.

If you think I'm saying it takes millions of years for the 'one lone event' to make 1 cell you're an idiot.

[Blackie6789]

From your original post on this subject:
Amino acids form into proteins in natural conditions by a polymerisation reaction...All stages mentioned are observable in their own separate cases, but it takes millions of years for the whole process to be successfully completed, which is why it doesn't happen every time a puddle of acid runs over a soil bed.
In all cells, proteins exist. However, if it takes millions of years for polymerization (eg formation of amino acid strands that according to some scientists may form proteins) to occur [and even then, it only creates small strands of amino acids that can be terminated easily], then how do you expect cells to form in LESS TIME?
You are saying that cells can form in less then millions of years, but the very basis that forms these cells apparently takes millions of years to make.

-I misread your post about the closed system; the meaning I interpreted was that you thought that the earth is a closed system... Which is my fault.
-Regarding your equilibrium, even if you have that, you still have to form replication in a matter of years. If you have an equilibrium, and you cannot reach replication, its useless. Unless you reach a point where X can reproduce itself, your equilibrium is nothing although it may increase the chance of forming a replication molecule. [The chance of forming even a simple cell is astounding, in fact, it can be considered mathematically impossible.]

[Rammjet]

-Individual reactions do not take millions of years to occur, they can take seconds.
-The probability with respect to time, over which these reactions must happen for the likelihood of a particular combination to be likely to emerge is millions of years. [but still, could take 1 million or 100 million years, since it's a probability function]

-Damn right you misread my post.
-Refer you to previous bullet points, and remind you we're talking about self-sustaining reactions etcetera , and nobody's arguing simple cells formed spontaneously, after replicating molecules emerged it may have taken geological aeons for them to develop to a point we'd recognise as 'cellular', but hey-ho, let's just ignore evolution shall we?



I thought of a good way to explain this: it takes generations to breed a new dog, but only minutes for the pups to be born.

[Blackie6789]

-Individual reactions do not take millions of years to occur, they can take seconds.
-The probability with respect to time, over which these reactions must happen for the likelihood of a particular combination to be likely to emerge is millions of years. [but still, could take 1 million or 100 million years, since it's a probability function]

The probability of this is actually pretty easy to determine. Lets say that all the 20 amino acids required for life did indeed exist in the early earth. This is of course, a best case scenario, but it makes calculations easier. A typical protein is made up of around 445 left handed amino acids. Amino acids come in two forms; left and right handed. However, only left handed amino acids are used in life. So, to create a protein from ONLY left handed proteins, you would have to multiply 1/2 (left and right handed amino acids) together 445 times (representing 445 LEFT handed amino acids forming together without one single right handed amino acid.) When you multiply this out, you get ~10^123. And thats only for forming a single protein. In a simple organism, you may need up to 300-400 proteins ALL IN THE RIGHT ORDER and ALL WITH LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS [I believe the most minimally complex organism has around 280 proteins or so]. If you really want to know how improbable it is for this to occur, calculations suggest that the chance is around ~10^29345. IN comparison, the distance across the known universe is 10^28.

Thats not even mentioning that in polymerization, you need an bifunctional monomer to connect the amino acid chains. However, in all origin of life experiments, 3 times as many unifunctional monomers [monomers that terminate an amino acid chain] have occurred. So multiply 1/3 times that number to get yet another mathematically impossible answer.

My point is this: Abiogenesis is very unlikely.

[PooZy]

The probability of this is actually pretty easy to determine. Lets say that all the 20 amino acids required for life did indeed exist in the early earth. This is of course, a best case scenario, but it makes calculations easier. A typical protein is made up of around 445 left handed amino acids. Amino acids come in two forms; left and right handed. However, only left handed amino acids are used in life. So, to create a protein from ONLY left handed proteins, you would have to multiply 1/2 (left and right handed amino acids) together 445 times (representing 445 LEFT handed amino acids forming together without one single right handed amino acid.) When you multiply this out, you get ~10^123. And thats only for forming a single protein. In a simple organism, you may need up to 300-400 proteins ALL IN THE RIGHT ORDER and ALL WITH LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS [I believe the most minimally complex organism has around 280 proteins or so]. If you really want to know how improbable it is for this to occur, calculations suggest that the chance is around ~10^29345. IN comparison, the distance across the known universe is 10^28.

Thats not even mentioning that in polymerization, you need an bifunctional monomer to connect the amino acid chains. However, in all origin of life experiments, 3 times as many unifunctional monomers [monomers that terminate an amino acid chain] have occurred. So multiply 1/3 times that number to get yet another mathematically impossible answer.

My point is this: Abiogenesis is very unlikely.

so r u still assuming they react at random?

[Rammjet]

so r u still assuming they react at random?

This is why the probability of complex reactions can not be soully determined at the breakfast table, without even using google.

Only someone scientifically illiterate would think otherwise.

Let's use the same stupid waffle to prove that salt doesn't exist: salt must be arranged in an ionic lattice of cation, anion, cation, anion. Therefore the random chance of a salt lattice 5000 atoms across forming in the right order purely by chance, is 1/[insert wopping huge number here].

Anyway, salt forms because cations and anions attract and are more stable in a lattice, [this is called lattice enthalpy].

Complex organic chemistry also forms because of the nature of the chemical constituants and enthalpies, NOT BY RANDOM, sure there are probabilities involved, but they're not all based on complete randomness.


[also blackie, have you realised time constants have to be applied to a probability such as this- whether your time constant is 1 second or 1 nano-second hugely changes what your probability means, yet you mention no time constants at all. Of course trying to calculate the probability of these reactions is pretty pointless, when you can simply try to replicate such reactiond and simply observe that polymerisations happen etc]

[Rammjet]

Understanding the Formation of amino acid chains for creationists [and other dummies]:

Jim has a class of 30 students.
Jim tells them to all line up and hold hands.
Why is the likelyhood of any specific combination not 1/(2^30)?
Because some of Jim's students are friends, so they want to hold hands with eachother.
Therefore the chain of students, no matter how many times Jim does it, doesn't always take a random form, some arrangements of students are far more likely than others.

[Nerd with Specs]

Understanding the Formation of amino acid chains for creationists [and other dummies]:

Jim has a class of 30 students.
Jim tells them to all line up and hold hands.
Why is the likelyhood of any specific combination not 1/(2^30)?
Because some of Jim's students are friends, so they want to hold hands with eachother.
Therefore the chain of students, no matter how many times Jim does it, doesn't always take a random form, some arrangements of students are far more likely than others.

What!!!!!!????? I barely understand any of this, let alone what it has to do with God...

[Legend]

What!!!!!!????? I barely understand any of this, let alone what it has to do with God...

Perhaps you should read the 10000 previous comments and not be so biased.

[ShadowZ]

There is alot of proof that he does.
Yes.

[Suuper]

The probability of this is actually pretty easy to determine. Lets say that all the 20 amino acids required for life did indeed exist in the early earth. This is of course, a best case scenario, but it makes calculations easier. A typical protein is made up of around 445 left handed amino acids. Amino acids come in two forms; left and right handed. However, only left handed amino acids are used in life. So, to create a protein from ONLY left handed proteins, you would have to multiply 1/2 (left and right handed amino acids) together 445 times (representing 445 LEFT handed amino acids forming together without one single right handed amino acid.) When you multiply this out, you get ~10^123. And thats only for forming a single protein. In a simple organism, you may need up to 300-400 proteins ALL IN THE RIGHT ORDER and ALL WITH LEFT HANDED AMINO ACIDS [I believe the most minimally complex organism has around 280 proteins or so]. If you really want to know how improbable it is for this to occur, calculations suggest that the chance is around ~10^29345. IN comparison, the distance across the known universe is 10^28.

Thats not even mentioning that in polymerization, you need an bifunctional monomer to connect the amino acid chains. However, in all origin of life experiments, 3 times as many unifunctional monomers [monomers that terminate an amino acid chain] have occurred. So multiply 1/3 times that number to get yet another mathematically impossible answer.

My point is this: Abiogenesis is very unlikely.

Um, blackie, just thought I'd point out: You don't know what you're talking about.