How life began????

Brandon9000 wrote:

You're mistaken. The 2nd Law only states that the entropy of the universe as a whole must increase, it makes no statement whatever about what happens locally. Here's what happend.

1. Eventually, after hundreds of millions of years, a single, self replicating molecule formed and started replicating. Each of the replicas also started replicating etc.
2. From time to time there would be a mistake in replication, which usually resulted in an inert, dysfunctional unit, but occasionally resulted in one which was either just as good or even superior, just by random chance. In a sample with trillions of self-replicating units, you'll get almost every possible outcome, including the occasional improvement.
3. When improvements occur, they give that unit an enhanced probability of lasting longer and having more descendants.

Thus, with huge sample sizes over immense amounts of time, there is a gradual trend towards impovement in functionality, usually achieved by increased complexity.

Now, specifically, tell me what is unlikely about this process, and stop quoting other people.

I hope you really don't expect me to believe that bunch of hype! Do you?
If you do, then you are expecting me to believe in something much harder than just believing that God created.
God Created = Simple.
What you said = Ludicrous Fantasy.

I hope you really don't expect me to believe that bunch of hype! Do you?
If you do, then you are expecting me to believe in something much harder than just believing that God created.
God Created = Simple.
What you said = Ludicrous Fantasy.

It's simple to think that the sun is a chariot of fire that rides across the sky. But that doesn't make it true. The truth is that the Earth is a planet turning on its axis, orbiting a star which is many billions of years old.

rosborne979 wrote:

It's simple to think that the sun is a chariot of fire that rides across the sky. But that doesn't make it true. The truth is that the Earth is a planet turning on its axis, orbiting a star which is many billions of years old.

The Sun a Chariot of fire riding in the sky? Never heard that one before.

If a theory is conclusively proven there is no need to say we don't know.

But the theories of how life began will only be conclusively proven when scientist can create simple reproductive organisms from "dead" material.

I assume the religious ones who defend creationism do not believe anything can happen in a random order. They believe everything must have a cause that is dictated by one supreme ruler.

Would this be a correct assumption?

I agree that everything has a cause........

I believe man has free will.

real life wrote:

I agree that everything has a cause........

False, quantum mechanics is probabilistic not causative per se.

real life wrote:

I believe man has free will.

Not only have you never effectively defined "free will" you have yet to demonstrate this claim, hence your assertion is meaningless.

real life wrote:

I believe man has free will.

Not only have you never effectively defined "free will" you have yet to demonstrate this claim, hence your assertion is meaningless.

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

I agree that everything has a cause........

False, quantum mechanics is probabilistic not causative per se.

real life wrote:

I believe man has free will.

Not only have you never effectively defined "free will" you have yet to demonstrate this claim, hence your assertion is meaningless.

Our entire society is based on the premise that man has free will and is therefore responsible for his actions.

If a society did not hold persons responsible for their actions, anarchy would be the result. Why? Because people would make different choices if they could do whatever they could get away with.

-------------------------------------------------------

Since you do not submit definitions of each word you are using, are your statements 'meaningless' also?

Perhaps I have expected too much of you, assuming you knew the meanings of simple words.

Actually, this is quite a regular pattern with you.

When at a loss to answer, you begin demanding definitions of common words. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary instead, and stop expecting others to do your work for you.

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

I agree that everything has a cause........

False, quantum mechanics is probabilistic not causative per se.

real life wrote:

I believe man has free will.

Not only have you never effectively defined "free will" you have yet to demonstrate this claim, hence your assertion is meaningless.

Our entire society is based on the premise that man has free will and is therefore responsible for his actions.

If a society did not hold persons responsible for their actions, anarchy would be the result. Why? Because people would make different choices if they could do whatever they could get away with.

-------------------------------------------------------

Since you do not submit definitions of each word you are using, are your statements 'meaningless' also?

Perhaps I have expected too much of you, assuming you knew the meanings of simple words.

Actually, this is quite a regular pattern with you.

When at a loss to answer, you begin demanding definitions of common words. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary instead, and stop expecting others to do your work for you.

By what logic do you propose that anything you claim "our entire society is based on" must therefore be true?

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

I agree that everything has a cause........

False, quantum mechanics is probabilistic not causative per se.

real life wrote:

I believe man has free will.

Not only have you never effectively defined "free will" you have yet to demonstrate this claim, hence your assertion is meaningless.

Our entire society is based on the premise that man has free will and is therefore responsible for his actions.

If a society did not hold persons responsible for their actions, anarchy would be the result. Why? Because people would make different choices if they could do whatever they could get away with.

-------------------------------------------------------

Since you do not submit definitions of each word you are using, are your statements 'meaningless' also?

Perhaps I have expected too much of you, assuming you knew the meanings of simple words.

Actually, this is quite a regular pattern with you.

When at a loss to answer, you begin demanding definitions of common words. Perhaps you should buy a dictionary instead, and stop expecting others to do your work for you.

By what logic do you propose that anything you claim "our entire society is based on" must therefore be true?

The whole of society functions 'as if' free will exists.

This being the case, the burden of proof is on you to show it does not exist, not upon those who say it does.

The entire "free will" issue is tangential and an argument getter whenever a topic strays from its original title.

For some reason yesterday I posted about something relevant to this thread and somehow I was actually posting on "Sun Worship". OH well, I need to check my titles when posting.

ANYway- Id commented there that 3 of the 20 critical RNA amino acids (compiled via "polymerization") appear in the spectra of gases around stars and various gas clusters in our own galaxy. These spectra are seen in IR and UV light and , importantly,have to make one think about how bogus is the Creationists assertion about the "impossibility" of molecular self assembly. If youve got enough Hydrogen and secondary elements like O2, N2 and C the "Chemistry set " of the Universe is entirely possible. The ease of production of a cyclohexane ring is at the core of everything . Once a cyclohexan is formed , a jump to the RNA world then a RNA and Protein world, then An RNA,Protein,DNA world is not a mathematical improbability. APparently it appears to be a sure thing because the areas of amino acids in space are huge .

farmerman wrote:

The entire "free will" issue is tangential and an argument getter whenever a topic strays from its original title.

For some reason yesterday I posted about something relevant to this thread and somehow I was actually posting on "Sun Worship". OH well, I need to check my titles when posting.

ANYway- Id commented there that 3 of the 20 critical RNA amino acids (compiled via "polymerization") appear in the spectra of gases around stars and various gas clusters in our own galaxy. These spectra are seen in IR and UV light and , importantly,have to make one think about how bogus is the Creationists assertion about the "impossibility" of molecular self assembly. If youve got enough Hydrogen and secondary elements like O2, N2 and C the "Chemistry set " of the Universe is entirely possible. The ease of production of a cyclohexane ring is at the core of everything . Once a cyclohexan is formed , a jump to the RNA world then a RNA and Protein world, then An RNA,Protein,DNA world is not a mathematical improbability. APparently it appears to be a sure thing because the areas of amino acids in space are huge .

Even if all amino acids were everywhere in abundance, it is quite a jump to state that they would self assemble, and once assembled be able to survive and thrive instead of becoming chemically degraded.

What would happen if today you took RNA out of a cell and left it in the open environment? Would it thrive or would it degrade?

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:

The entire "free will" issue is tangential and an argument getter whenever a topic strays from its original title.

For some reason yesterday I posted about something relevant to this thread and somehow I was actually posting on "Sun Worship". OH well, I need to check my titles when posting.

ANYway- Id commented there that 3 of the 20 critical RNA amino acids (compiled via "polymerization") appear in the spectra of gases around stars and various gas clusters in our own galaxy. These spectra are seen in IR and UV light and , importantly,have to make one think about how bogus is the Creationists assertion about the "impossibility" of molecular self assembly. If youve got enough Hydrogen and secondary elements like O2, N2 and C the "Chemistry set " of the Universe is entirely possible. The ease of production of a cyclohexane ring is at the core of everything . Once a cyclohexan is formed , a jump to the RNA world then a RNA and Protein world, then An RNA,Protein,DNA world is not a mathematical improbability. APparently it appears to be a sure thing because the areas of amino acids in space are huge .

Even if all amino acids were everywhere in abundance, it is quite a jump to state that they would self assemble, and once assembled be able to survive and thrive instead of becoming chemically degraded.

What would happen if today you took RNA out of a cell and left it in the open environment? Would it thrive or would it degrade?

No it isn't quite a jump, because the actual claim is that within numerous immense oceans over hundreds of millions of years, one single self-replicating molecule finally formed and began making copies of itself. Soon there were numerous copies replicating themeselves. From time to time a mistake would occur during replication, resulting in a change. Some infinitessimal fraction of the changes were improvements. Maybe this whole thing had happened before and simply died out, but finally it succeeded. What is unlikely about that? And if you reply, don't change the subject or add new subjects.