Re: What's the Problem?


Ye Old One wrote:
On 3 Aug 2006 20:08:03 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

Robin Levett wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:


AC wrote:
On 24 Jul 2006 13:33:53 -0700,
Jim Spaza <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:
On 22 Jul 2006 10:51:20 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spaza9@xxxxxxxxx> enriched
this group when s/he wrote:

May I submit that it stops with the Supreme Being? :-)

Please provide evidence that any SB actually exists.

--
Bob.

The chance that this universe got created in a stable and functional
way is infinitesimally small. Therefore, the answer probably resides
somewhere else. There are zero known instances of naturally occurring
or induced (designed) abiogenesis. Science has shown the possibility
of such an event is also infinitesimally small, if not absolute zero.
Therefore, the cause resides in something other than natural processes.

You have been asked repeatedly to show your work on this, Jim. Why do
continually make an argument you know you can't possibly back up?


<snip numerology based on varying the basic forces by absurd amounts>


Here are a lot of conditions that just have to be right (how randomly
lucky for us):

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

It is true that science has shown that variation of the basic forces beyond
some fairly close limits leads to a universe in which we couldn't exist.
That, however, was not your claim. Your claim was that "Science has shown
that the possibility of [abiogenesis] is also infinitesimally small".

Address that claim.

OK.

It's just that if I put too much into one post, then people tend to
read one or two lines and that's all.

Anyway...

1) Can anyone identify the process by which the first lifeform,
presumeably a proto-bacteria, came into being? No.

Not 100% correct.

Then, what is the process and what is the scientific evidence showing
that this process is the one which caused the abiogenesis?


2) Can anyone identify the process by which the precursors to the DNA
which were needed to create the first proto-bacteria came into being?
no.

100% incorrect.

What is the process which created the precursors?


3) Can anyone identify the precursors themselves? No.

Chemical markers have been found.

Such as?


4) Can anyone reproduce this event, or something remotely close to it,
in controlled conditions? No.

We have only been trying for about 50 years or so, and in small labs.
Life many have taken 10 million times as long, and it had the whole
earth to use as its lab.

And we have intelligence, technology, and controlled conditions. Those
three right there make it likely, if not extremely probable, that we
could have created life if it were possible for nature to have done
it...especially since you mentioned above how we know what the
precursors to life were and the processes involved.


OK. So far, we admit that we only have speculation concerning how
abiogenesis occurred, with what processes, and with what materials.
Well, speculation isn't science.

It is a very important part of science. Butwe do have a lot more than
just speculation.

Speculation without the scientific evidence to guide us in that
speculation is mere dreaming.


Now, if people want to infer
abiogenesis for lack of any other theory, then OK. But, let's admit
that there is no scientific evidence.

The evidence is that life exists today and we know that at one point
it did not. There is scientific evidence for abiogenisis, there is no
evidence for any alternative.

Circular reasoning.


Without any known process, we are left to infer RANDOM interactions of
just the right materials in just the right way for just the right
amount of time. And we don't know the materials, way, nor time.

Chemistry is not random.

The chance that two precursors would come together in an environment
the size of the earth is most assuredly random. The chance that the
two precursors would "fit" together is random. The chance that the two
precursors would fit together long enough for a reaction to take place
has random elements. Once the precursors randomly come together,
randomly in a way that they allow them to interact, and randomly long
enough for any reaction to take place, then predictable laws of
chemistry take over.


So, randomness it is, but first assuming that a natural process is
capable. By the way, scientifically speaking, you cannot assume a
natural process is capable, since no one has witnessed it,

But we have, we have witnessed life appearing on earth, we have a
fossile record to prove it did.

Circular reasoning.


been able to
reproduce it, or otherwise obtain direct evidence that it actually
happened.

We are here to prove it happened.

Heck, maybe this magically quantum vacuum just popped us into existence
like supposedly did for the Big Bang singularity. :-)


But, no matter. Let's assume for now.

Let conservatively assume that this first lifeform had a cell with 300
proteins.

FAR to complicated.

Since no one was there, it's a fair...speculation. You did say that
speculation is part of science.


This
is indeed conservative as the simplest known cell today, Mycoplasma
hominis H39, has about 600 different proteins.

And for a start it has a cell wall, the first life didn't.

How do you know that?


This is actually a bad
assumption as the theory of evolution stipulates that lifeforms do NOT
have to increase in complexity as it evolves. But, assuming 300
proteins assuages the evolutionist who says that the first
proto-bacteria COULD have been simpler.

Here come the numbers...

This proto-bacteria's copy mechanism, which must have been created in
working condition (could not have existed non-functional then evolved
into something that worked),

Again. Wrong. You do have this habit of making claims on a subject you
clearly know nothing about.

And you didn't provide any science to refute it. You just went "no,
no" and attacked the messenger. It seems that you're the one with a
problem of making claims without evidence.


needs all amino acids to be left-handed
and all the nucleic acids to be right-handed.

Not needed at all. All life TODAY has that property, so all life TODAY
has evolved from a common ancestor with that property. But that does
not mean that all first life shared the same property.

If you have objective testable scientific evidence to support your
assertion, then please present it. If early life forms might not have
shared this property, then please tell me why you think so.


This is so in order to
make all the pairing molecules line up on the same side of the chain.
This MUST be the case.

Not at all.

OK. Show me a life form today in which it is NOT the case.


Now, some people will mention how the DNA
replication sequence might have been different (i.e. simpler) or used
RNA instead of DNA.

We know there was a time when RNA was used, and there may well have
been even simpler precursers to RNA.

How do you know this?


This is just a pure guess based not on science but
on personal desire in order to make the numbers easier to swallow.

No dumbo, it is science, try studying the subject.

No, please present the evidence to buttress your denials instead of
just making snide remarks.


Don't think so? Then show me the scientific evidence that existing
life forms can reproduce using something other than the present DNA
system.

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

Well, the article started off with this:

"Nobody understands the origin of life. If they say they do, they are
probably trying to fool you. - Ken Nealson, 2002"

You apparently didn't even read the start of your own referenced
website which you probably Google-searched in a hurry.

Zero evidence that RNA was ever used by anything instead of DNA. It's
all speculation. There was no scientific evidence presented showing
how RNA was, in fact, used. Just guessing using the word "could" a
lot.

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2004/articles_2004_Before_DNA.html

So, because RNA can theoretically carry information because it can act
as an enzyme, you are stating that RNA was used instead of DNA during
abiogenesis?

Is this what you mean by speculation?

http://exobio.ucsd.edu/Space_Sciences/rna-dna.htm

Here's the tell-tale admission:

"Since the RNA in the RNA world is alive, it is assumed that RNA
evolved into DNA through some sort of genetic takeover event. In other
words, RNA enzymes made DNA, which replaced it in the genome. Proteins
were added into the mix at some point. This has never been explained in
detail."

ASSUMED?!? Yeah, whatever.

Never been explained in detail? I should say not.



If the molecule does not have constant stereochemistry (constant left
or right-handedness), then it does not fold properly. Why do the
numbers start going against abiogenesis? Because the percentage of
left and right-handed nucleotides is always essentially 50%.

Untrue. Most are made by life, therefore very early on a bias towards
one side would have existed.

Most what are made by life? What bias? Why? What are you talking
about?


Let's look at a small protein length of just 100 units. The chance of
getting constant left or right-handedness is 50% (left v. right) ^ (#
of proteins x protein length) x 2 sides.

That is, with numbers, (1/2)^(300*100)*2=~1/10^9031.

Total rubbish.

And your numbers show what? Oooppsss. You didn't see fit to introduce
any.

Seriously, if the above numbers are in error and are "rubbish", then it
should be easy to correct them.


THAT'S 0.0000000000000000000000000000000(+9000 more zeroes)1 %.

Now, that seems like essentially zero.

Only to an idiot who doesn't understand the science and maths involved
- in other words YOU.

Tolerance is a good thing. So is anger management.


But, let's talk about how many
chemical reactions could have been taking place at the time. There
must have been a lot of chances for this to occur.

How much time has elapsed since the Big Bang is thought to have
occurred? (I know that abiogenesis is estimated to have occurred only
2-4 billion years ago. But, let's give abiogenesis some better odds in
case the 2-4 billion number is in error.)

15 billion years * 360 days/year * 24 hours/day * 60 minutes/hour * 60
seconds/minutes = 466,560,000,000,000,000 seconds. That is 4.6656^17.

How many TOTAL atoms were thought to be in existence at the time?
(Forget the fact that most atoms couldn't interact with other atoms,
and forget the fact that it took very specific atoms interacting in
very specific ways for even the precursors to life to form.)

Let's say 10^83 total atoms. We'll forget the whole amino acid and
precursor thing for now.

So, 10^83 atoms interacting with each other for 4.6656^17 seconds until
NOW. That gives us about 4.6656*10^100 or so chances for abiogenesis
to occur. Pretty good chances...until you remember that 1/10^9031
chance that the DNA left/right-handedness chance.

Not good with numbers I see.

Why would you say that?




And this assumes each atom is interacting PERFECTLY with each other
atom. Now, we know that it takes amino acids, not atoms, to form
proteins for the first proto-bacteria. Also, let's now throw into the
equation how every amino acids will NOT interact perfectly with other
amino acids.

I think what is safe to assume is that you really don't understand the
problem.

No, I don't understand YOUR problem, whatever it is. I wish that you'd
spell it out. If it is a disagreement over numbers, then tell me how.
If it is a problem with the chemistry, then please let me know.


Good gracious. Look at the numbers. You have a 10^100 chance saying
that abiogenesis happened versus a 10^9031 chance that it didn't.

And that's just the left/right-handedness requirement. We haven't
touched how such a DNA-creating mechanism itself (and with all of its
precursors) came about.

You do the math.

I have, the answer is: 1. It happened. We are here to prove it
happened.

Circular reasoning.


I hope that you appreciate the hour that it took for me to do the math.
Now, I have a headache and need a beer. :-)

No. What you need is to abandon your pathetic fairy stories and learn
some real science.

Well, since you didn't take the time to refute anything, just whined
and complained, I guess I won't be learning "real science" from you,
now will I? You're not very helpful at all.



<snippage>



Nor have we gotten into the specifics of how an ancient religious text
could have predicted future events,

These prophecies come in two types; prophecies conveniently written after
the fact or prophecies so vague that they have been applied to many
time periods (with a good deal of egg on some folks faces).

Yes. But, you'd have to have a combination of the CIA and Hollywood to
generate the successful events and characters behind most of the
Biblical prophecies.

Let's look at just one, as an example.

The Bible talks about the rebirth of Israel in the Book of Ezekiel.
Israel became a nation again in 1948.

This is a partial quote from the website referenced below.

In the year 592 B.C. in the Babylonian Empire, a Hebrew slave named
Ezekiel was instructed:

"Lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon
yourself. You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on
your side. I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of
their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of
Israel. After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on
your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have
assigned you 40 days, a day for each year." -Ezekiel 4:4-6.

At that time, the Jews were in captivity after being overthrown by the
Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzer in 606 B.C. This 70 year captivity of
the Jews had been prophesied extensively by Isaiah almost 100 years
earlier (Isaiah 39:5-7).

The prophecy in Ezekiel 4 predicts a total of 430 years of punishment
for the nation of Israel.

No it does not; if you are counting Israel and Judah together as the nation
of Israel, then the prediction is of 390 years, of which only the first 40
years are shared between the two houses.

If they were shared, then why did God not lump Judah's 40 years in with
the first 40 of Israel's 390 years, so of like judicial sentences
running concurrently? God didn't lump them together. Thus, the
prophecy is 430 years.

There is no god(s).

Yeah, I heard you the first time. Well, if you disagree with the
prophetic analysis, then tell me why.



70 Years of this period of punishment are
accounted for in the 70-year Babylonian captivity. That leaves 360
more years of punishment unaccounted remaining.

This is key:

...and wrong.

In Leviticus 26, we are told that if the nation of Israel
did not hearken unto the Lord that she would be punished. Then after
being punished, if the nation continued to be in rebellion toward God
that the punishment would be multiplied by seven:

"If you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands, and if
you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my
commands and so violate my covenant...I will set my face against you so
that you will be defeated by your enemies. If after all this you will
not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over."
- Leviticus 26: 14-22.

A very contorted reading of the original; it looks almost like a quote mine.

It is somewhat a quote and somewhat my own. I wouldn't have pasted
part of it if I didn't believe it. You've seen me disagree with
educated Biblical scholars in this forum before.

Educated is not a word I would use.

If you eliminate from consideration all of the personal attacks and
innuendo that you have posted, there doesn't seem to be hardly any
words left for you to use at all.


[cut more biblical crap]

--
Bob.

.