[Blitz_Lightning]

You obviously don't comprehend how small 1 in 1^50 is. The number of seconds in 15 billion years is less than 1^18. The thing is, WE CAN"T COMPREHEND SUCH A SMALL NUMBER.
It is even harder for Carl Sagan's value of 1 in 1^2000000.
Or the value of 1^57 million, using the supposition that the simplest organism uses 60 000 proteins, and the value of an average protein coming into existence from a soup of proteins. And this value (1^57 million) doesn't include the probability that each of the amino acids coming into existence by chance, and the small probability of amino acids randomly forming a bond with each other. Do you understand that for amino acids to bond to each other is against the energy gradient? Or, for that matter, that for 1 molecule of protein of good enough size to exist in water by chance, you would need a pool of size 1^50 particles? For enough of these proteins to get together for even the possibility of a simple organism to get together by chance would make it, what, 1^1 billion?.

Now, the estimated number of particles in the universe is 1^80. To get a grip of how big 1^57 million is, imagine a universe with that number of particles. Now, imagine each of those particles split into 1^80 particles again. And then those again. Repeat that 712500 more times. Do you understand why such numbers can be considered nil?

[CP5670]

My internet connection was down for the last few days and it looks like more stuff has sprouted up here in the meantime.

Well..... there's some fundamental flaws there though - firstly, that God may not exist in a form we can understand - he may even be entire universe.

Also, we can't be certain we have the methods to gain emprical evidence - or even recognising it for what it is.

That is a faulty assumption; unless it can proved that god is decidedly indeterminate (and even then, this can only be done for current methods of observation; it cannot be proved completely for all systems), there is an equal chance that we can understand him as the chance that we cannot. There is nothing to be gained in just giving up on this, while there is a 50% possibility that we can understand things by taking the opposite assumption. This is one of the key axioms of all science.

You can't put God in a test tube.

Yes, you can. As Kazan said, anything in the universe can be "put in a test tube."

To find Him is your job. Shoveling Jesus down another person's throat is not a good thing, as experience taught me before. God loves you no matter what. He wishes that none shall perish, but since He gave you free will, He cannot stop that from happening.

If this is what the god is like, he is even worse than the average human. If someone with such powers actually has explicitly defined "wishes," he should have had enough sense to design people so that they would always follow the wishes.

Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.

As many others have said, this is total nonsense. The only way to get a truly impossible event would be to have a probability of 1/¥, or in other words, 0.

The thing is, WE CAN"T COMPREHEND SUCH A SMALL NUMBER.

That does not mean anything. Mathematicians and scientists have long since learned that they cannot rely on their intuition at all and must use precise logic for everything. (the Weierstrass function is a good example here; continuous everywhere, but differentiable nowhere)

Also, tell me why it is not any more likely that the purple dragon made the god and I made the purple dragon rather than the god existing indefinitely.

[Blitz_Lightning]

This experiment was designed to test the hypothesis of Oparin/Haldane.

The hypothesis remained untested until 1953, when University of Chicago graduate student Stanley Miller reported an experiment in which methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water (thought to be the components of the ‘primitive’ atmosphere) were mixed in a closed glass apparatus. The water was heated and the gases circulated past a high-voltage electric spark to simulate lightning. This provided the energy to break the chemical bonds of the compounds present, and the resulting free radicals combined to form a mixture of simple organic compounds, including trace quantities of some amino acids.

Crucial to the success of the experiment was Miller’s water trap in which the amino acids generated could dissolve and thus be protected from subsequent destructive contact with the spark. But on the hypothesized primordial Earth with no oxygen (and therefore no ozone), the products would have been exposed to destructive ultraviolet rays. This is so even if they reached the oceans, because UV radiation can penetrate tens of metres of water.

Per se, this experiment does not pose difficulties to the creationist. With the most astute intelligent guidance, such an experimental set-up, which generates a multitude of interfering organic acids and bases (plus racemic and biologically useless amino acids) cannot produce a single biologically relevant protein strand. To claim this experiment as evidence for evolution would be akin to allowing water to flow over a bed of coal, and upon identifying a little ink-like substance, claiming the Encyclopaedia Britannica was produced by natural, random processes.

Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller’s apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth. It is produced by photolysis of water vapour in the atmosphere, where hydrogen escapes gravitation and oxygen thereby increases in concentration.

Currently, the most probable early atmosphere is deemed by evolutionists to have consisted of water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and hydrogen, a very different composition than used by Miller. Hydrogen would have been present in small concentrations at most, because it could escape Earth’s gravity; ammonia and methane would have been destroyed by ultraviolet light. In 1983, Miller reported that if carbon monoxide is added to the more realistic mixture, plus a large proportion of free hydrogen, then only glycine, the simplest amino acid, could be produced, and in trace amounts only.

The experts know the experiments provide no support for an abiogenesis model. But nevertheless, biology textbooks and popular magazines like National Geographic continue to mislead the public into thinking that the Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for evolution.

[Bobboau]

yes we I don't think anyone here is imlpying that a fully formed cellular organisim just sudenly came into existance, I don't think anytone here is even sudgeting a fully functioning peice of DNA just magicly apeared, I don'te even think were all that confedint that a single protein would for on it's own, science has only been looking into this for about 100 years, and we have covered a lot of questions, and were still working on it, right now I think the best explaination for the origins of life is the simple self replicating molicule, not DNA, not nesicarily even a protein, just a simple organic molicule that could replicat it's self, this is all that is needed.

[Blitz_Lightning]

If the amount of matter in the universe was greater by 1 trillionth, the universe would have started collapsing before the average temperature in the universe reached ~6000 degrees C, according to the current big bang model.
A fraction smaller, and galaxies and clusters could not be formed.

The strong and weak nuclear forces are fine tuned. If it was 1% smaller, nuclei greater than helium would not exist.
If it was 1% smaller, stars wouldn't be shining.

The probabilities given before were given assuming that each particle was one in which evolution could occur. Most of the matter in the universe is in stars, black holes, etc. And that each particle makes a trillion trillion trillion collisions each second in which a different bond occurs. Obviously, this is really generous figures. If we were more strict about it, all the probabilities would make, what, 1 in 1^1 trillion?

[CP5670]

The probabilities given before were given assuming that each particle was one in which evolution could occur. Most of the matter in the universe is in stars, black holes, etc. And that each particle makes a trillion trillion trillion collisions each second in which a different bond occurs. Obviously, this is really generous figures. If we were more strict about it, all the probabilities would make, what, 1 in 1^1 trillion?

We already know that. 1/10^10^12 is quite different from 0. As I said before, do not rely on your intuition, but rather on precise mathematical logic.

Let's find out if he sees it this time.

JUST BECAUSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FOOLPROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CREATIONISM IS CORRECT, DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION, BUT INSTEAD FIND SOME PROOF FOR CREATIONISM

Also, since nobody seems to dispute my new fundamental theory, it is indeed very true that I made the purple dragon, the purple dragon made god and god made the universe. I'm going to write a book, start up a website and create a new institution based on this idea!

[Blitz_Lightning]

Response---

A group led by Julius Rebek synthesized a molecule called amino adenosine triacid ester (AATE), which itself consists of two components, pentafluorophenyl ester and amino adenosine. When AATE molecules are dissolved in chloroform with the two components, the AATE molecules act as templates for the two components to join up and form new AATE molecules.
There are a number of reasons why this is irrelevant to an evolutionary origin of life

This system carries very little information, in contrast to even the simplest cell. Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome of any living organism, which contains 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. This organism is an obligate parasite. A free-living organism would need many more genes.

The new AATE molecule binds too strongly to the parent, so no new reactants can come in and join, as Rebek himself admits.

Replication only occurred in highly artificial, unnatural conditions.
 A reaction in chloroform is irrelevant to living organisms.
In particular, chloroform would not hinder condensation reactions as water does.
Most polymerisation reactions in life are condensation reactions, that is, they eject a small molecule like water. If there is much water around as there is with all living things, the reverse reaction is favoured, that is the hydrolysis (break-up) of polymers.
The molecule reproduced too accurately — there is no possibility of neo-Darwinian evolution by mutation and natural selection.
The slightest change would be disastrous... not a single mutation is possible that would be beneficial for this self-replicating molecule.

[CP5670]

Looks like you missed it again.

I will put that text up once again a bit later, but this time in glowing red or something.

[Bobboau]

you know you realy should give links or something when you copy and past from those sites,

this is one self replicating molicule, there are others,
in this molicule, level of information is irrelivent,
we know very little of the chemistry of early earth, for all we know there could have been seas of chloroform (though I SERIOSLY doubt this)
this page wich is suprisingly similar to you're post, gives no reasons why this molicule's replication is incapable of mutation, just says it is,
but it's probly true,
but the point of this experemint wasn't to find THE SRM (self replicating molicule, that's to much to wright), but A SRM, to prove that a simple molicule could replicate it's self, wich it proved, there are other SRMs, there are SRMs that exist in nature and are more robust (though more complicated)

I am more interested in the Reza Ghadiri molicule wich is (as said i this article)
1. It is self-replicating.
2. It is self-sustaining.
3. It is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

there is enough evedence for this theory, that I think it is currently the most likely

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Bobboau

I am more interested in the Reza Ghadiri molicule wich is (as said i this article)
1. It is self-replicating.
2. It is self-sustaining.
3. It is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.

there is enough evedence for this theory, that I think it is currently the most likely

Great read and very true.

Anyway: anyone noticed how the topic changed again?

Psuedo-science does not science make. -Yoda-

[CP5670]

That's an interesting article; I did not know of the existence of such a molecule until now. Looks like experimental science is starting to lean towards the evolution theory. Also, there was an article in the Washington Post a few days ago about some new discoveries regarding human will and consciousness; the scientific community appears to be going for the idea that consciousness is merely the interplay of intricate chemical reactions within the brain, which is exactly what my theory was/is.

[Blitz_Lightning]

Ernst Haeckel fudged diagrams

And this site
shows how flawed the Miller-Urey experiment is,
and this extract from the site shows how peppered moths don't even land on tree trunks, how Darwin's finches is actually evidence for creationism, the four-winged fruit flies, fossil horses and directed evolution, homology, tree of life, archaeopteryx, and others aren't scientific and not really evidence for evolution.

Moths in the wild are now known to be nocturnal fliers and virtually never remain exposed on tree trunks, but rather high in the trees on the underside of small branches where birds rarely seem to find them. Had the theory been correct, the light coloured varieties would have long since disappeared from heavily polluted areas such as Manchester, England. But this never happened. In regions with little industrial pollution, where the light-coloured ‘typicals’ seem better camouflaged, the melanic proportion unexpectedly reached 80%. And below the latitude 52°N melanism increased after pollution control measures were introduced. Furthermore, a decrease in pollution levels was matched by an increase in the proportion of melanics north of London but a decrease in the south. Although melanics seem better camouflaged in south Wales, they make up only about 20% of the population.Although decreasing pollution allowed the light coloured lichens to cover tree trunks again, the increase in proportion of typicals preceded lichen growth, i.e. the hider recovered before the hiding places. Finally, a decline of the melanic proportion in the United States was independent of changes in the lichen cover.
Several factors may be involved here. R.C. Steward collected data from 165 sites in Britain and found a correlation between moth proportions and concentration of sulphur dioxide, which is a pollutant transported by air.
What is disturbing in this matter is that the photographs, showing camouflaged moths on tree trunks, found in virtually all standard biology textbooks, have been staged. Dead moths had been glued to tree trunks, or moths released in desired positions during daylight, when they are torpid and remain where they land. University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne discovered to his dismay the flaws in what he called this classical ‘prize horse in our stable of examples’ of evolution only in 1998. Badly flawed experiments such as these continue to be reported uncritically merely because the evidence for evolutionary notions is in such short supply.
 

[CP5670]

I have no knowledge of the details of that experiment, but it is not really necessary here; please tell me how creationism is anything more than a silly substitute for science intended for those who are too weak-minded to explain things any further.

How about the so called science currently used in biology textbooks?

And your science would be? God did this, god did that, god did everything, end of story.

(and god was made by a purple dragon, who in turn was made by me )

[NotDefault]

Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
You obviously don't comprehend how small 1 in 1^50 is.

1 in 1^50?  That's actually not too bad.  It's 1.

...

Ok, I know you meant 1 in 10^50.  Still,

1 in 10^50 is not 0!

Perhaps there are infinite universes, and we just happen to be living in the one where life has appeared (in this form).  I state again that whoever says 1/10^50 = 0 has no grasp on reality.

Bah, the only reason I'm focusing on this small issue is that I simply can't handle endless streams of copy&pasted text.  You hardly ever provide any links, so I can't even easily check the veracity of the information you provide.  For example, this 1/10^50 could be something you just made up for all I know.  I simply don't have the time to check ever bit of information (or misinformation, as the case may be) that you post.

For that reason, I think I'll bow out of this discussion now.

P.S. What is with the big picture you just posted?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by NotDefault


P.S. What is with the big picture you just posted?

haven't got the slightest idea, but I do know what the picture is.

Is a part of the several phases an embryo (and the other incarnations) goes through durigng pregancy. This is only one phase of it, but if you'd take a look at the entir sequence one would see that a human embryo goes trough a lot more of those, each time resembling a more complicated creature before said creature gets born.

So very early on all creatures resemble only a very simple animal like a fish (the left picture is how a fish gets 'born' more or less). After that it moves on and on and on... so that near the end human and ape embryos look very much alike when they get born. Humans usually go a further and some parts (like the head) continue to grow even after birth (because otherwise our head would be to big to get through)

Such a sequence is one of the big showcases that evolution did happen as it proves that all creatures, simple and complicated, have common DNA (which has been proven by DNA testing too).

by Blitzy...

What is disturbing in this matter is that the photographs, showing camouflaged moths on tree trunks, found in virtually all standard biology textbooks, have been staged. Dead moths had been glued to tree trunks, or moths released in desired positions during daylight, when they are torpid and remain where they land.

Very funny, and I expect you believe in the black UN helicopters too.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning


The experts know the experiments provide no support for an abiogenesis model. But nevertheless, biology textbooks and popular magazines like National Geographic continue to mislead the public into thinking that the Miller-Urey experiment is evidence for evolution.

who wrote this garbage - because initial abiogenesis and evolution are not connected

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Blitz_Lightning
If the amount of matter in the universe was greater by 1 trillionth, the universe would have started collapsing before the average temperature in the universe reached ~6000 degrees C, according to the current big bang model.
A fraction smaller, and galaxies and clusters could not be formed.

The strong and weak nuclear forces are fine tuned. If it was 1% smaller, nuclei greater than helium would not exist.
If it was 1% smaller, stars wouldn't be shining.

The probabilities given before were given assuming that each particle was one in which evolution could occur. Most of the matter in the universe is in stars, black holes, etc. And that each particle makes a trillion trillion trillion collisions each second in which a different bond occurs. Obviously, this is really generous figures. If we were more strict about it, all the probabilities would make, what, 1 in 1^1 trillion?

that's complete bullhockey and shows a total lack of understanding of anything in this area.

If any of these values were changed the result would be forward affecting from the begining of time - everything would be adapted to it.

You're confusing cause and effect - THINGS ARE NOT FITTED TO US - WE'RE FITTED TO THINGS

[aldo_14]

You're trying to disprove the thoery of evolution by quoting other science?!

Tht's just idiotic[/c].  Or naive.  You assume that the results are not skewed by the scientist?  

Thre is no such thing as an uninvolved observer - every measurement made affects something else - you measure the position of an satom, you cahnge it's velocity.  Etc.

RE: oxygen on earth - surely life changing to cope with that is evidence of beneficial mutations occuring - especially with less ozone layer blocking solar raditation.  Also, life started in water first (or rather, a primordial soup of amino acids), in which there would be a lesser concentration of oxygen - H2O (ok, not strictly, but you get the idea).

[CP5670]

If the amount of matter in the universe was greater by 1 trillionth, the universe would have started collapsing before the average temperature in the universe reached ~6000 degrees C, according to the current big bang model.
A fraction smaller, and galaxies and clusters could not be formed.

I agree with Kazan on this; you don't really have any idea of what you are talking about. This can only occur if the universe is elliptic and therefore closed, and scientists do not have enough information to make a good guess on the cosmological curvature, so we must assume it as indeterminate in all our calculations. Remember that the gravitational force did not exist at this time as a force independent from the other three until far after the big bang had already occurred.

I simply don't have the time to check ever bit of information (or misinformation, as the case may be) that you post.

I think that is the case for all of us. Besides, it does not appear to be worth replying to his things, as he does not seem to ever actually respond to the stuff; he just goes to look for more nonsensical quotes to post here. The only guy that was worth dealing here was Sesq, as his posts at least had some degree of coherence, but he appears to have left for now.

Let me try again, though.

[glow=blue][color=00FFFF]JUST BECAUSE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT FOOLPROOF, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CREATIONISM IS CORRECT, DO NOT WASTE TIME ARGUING AGAINST EVOLUTION, BUT INSTEAD FIND SOME PROOF FOR CREATIONISM[/color][/glow]

[Bobboau]

maybe you should try makeing it flash and give it sound effects