Re: What's the Problem?


rupert.morrish@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Jim Spaza wrote:
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.

How many years had humans been trying to acheive powered flight prior
to 1903? The Jim Spaza of 1902 proudly declares that powered flight is
impossible, because it has not been done yet. He also points out that
this means birds must have been created by god.

The Jim Spaza of 1902? Hmmm...

OK. The Jim Spaza of 1902 would have said that powered flight is
possible because we see birds and insects do it. Thus, we know that it
is physically possible. We don't have the technology yet; but, it can
be done.

A better example would have been to say that Jim Spaza of 1902 proudly
declares that powered flight needs a Supreme Designer as there is no
known process in nature which allows birds to develop the ability to
fly. It would have been wrong; but, it would have been a better
example.




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.

Dreaming can be important. Discovery of the structure of benzene, for
example.

No problem. However, let's not declare as fact that which is still in
the dreaming stage.




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.

Would you care to elaborate, because I don't see the circular
reasoning. There is life now. This was not always the case. Therefore,
something changed.

Yes, some process caused life on this planet. There is no doubt about
that. But, it is circular reasoning to theorize abiogenesis and then
declare it as the cause of this life simply because no other
alternative is scientifically acceptable.




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.

The chance of a particular hydrogen molecule meeting a particular
oxygen molecule is pretty small, but the Hindenburg still exploded.

Human designers placed the hydrogen in great quantities under
controlled (thought to be controlled) conditions and then placed that
hydrogen in an atmosphere with oxygen. Such an event would never have
occurred with design.

I understand what you're trying to say; but, we're not talking about
the chemistry when the two molecules meet, stay together long enough to
interact, and there are no outside forces preventing interaction.
We're talking about the two coming together in the first place. And
you need just the right DNA precursor molecule to find just the right
corresponding other one to find each other to begin with. And then do
this several billion times successfully before the first proteins are
made and working together. And you still haven't made the first
lifeform yet. It still takes much more.




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.

Again, please elaborate on this. Species do not appear prior to some
point in the fossil record, and do not appear after some other point.
There's no circle there.

It's all about the exact cause, not the fact that life got created at
all.




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. :-)

Then why isn't it still happening? We may not be able to detect every
subatomic particle that comes into existence, but we would notice
people coming out of nowhere.

I was joking. I satirically used the standby explanation used by Big
Bang proponents when they realize that they painted themselves into a
scientific corner by needing a causal system or process even more
complex than the universe to create the universe.




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.

You've made an assumption. Any conclusions you come to are only as
strong as your assumption.



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?

Because we don't see cell walls occuring without living cells inside
them. The first life must either not have had a cell wall, or had
something other than a modern cell wall doing the same function.

So, you need a lifeform with a stable system in place before a cell
wall could ever exist?

How do you keep this lifeform intact long enough to form a cell wall
without itself dissipating?

And let's keep in mind that it would take thousands of years for a cell
wall to be created through natural selection and mutation if the
original lifeform never had one.




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.

Because there's no reason to suppose it did. It's the ultimate founder
effect.

Then explain how you can have a stable, reproducing lifeform without
the handiness factor coming into play.




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.

There are none. There's no reason that human beings can't have wings,
but none do.

That's a function of natural selection and the right mutation (or lack
thereof). The pairing of molecules in just the right way would be
needed at the very beginning unless someone has discovered how life can
exist with them.


[snip - bored with this]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... Please provide evidence that any SB actually exists. ... Can anyone identify the process by which the precursors to the DNA ... Life many have taken 10 million times as long, ... And for a start it has a cell wall, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists support evolution because evolution supports their
    ... If you could provide any evidence for your god that was ... If you compare the same DNA sequences from humans, chimps, gorillas, ... How, in your opinion or learning, do you think that life ... For sexual organisms to have evolved ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... Please provide evidence that any SB actually exists. ... that the possibility of [abiogenesis] is also infinitesimally small". ... The evidence is that life exists today and we know that at one point ... How many TOTAL atoms were thought to be in existence at the time? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sean loses interest
    ... please do present your evidence. ... written on to make it into real life testing much less demonstration. ... radiometric measures of the age of the universe and extrapolations ... of stellar and planetary evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your god isn't needed. ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)