Science debunks Abiogenesis.

[Hollie]

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

What do you think "it happening" is exactly?

A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.

A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.

The probability approaches ZERO. Mathematicians tell us us that once you reach a high enough number, the probability is essentially zero. The probability of random atoms forming life from non life is higher than the total number of atoms in the observable universe. The impossible is still impossible, no matter how much time you give it.

The nonsense you parrot from your ID'iot creation ministries has long ago been debunked.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

What do you think "it happening" is exactly?

A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.

A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.

The probability approaches ZERO. Mathematicians tell us us that once you reach a high enough number, the probability is essentially zero. The probability of random atoms forming life from non life is higher than the total number of atoms in the observable universe. The impossible is still impossible, no matter how much time you give it.

The nonsense you parrot from your ID'iot creation ministries has long ago been debunked.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Interesting site.

That is game, set and match.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Having more time reduces the odds, because of the additional chances the compounds have to interact.
Do you have any actual scientists saying it is impossible? Every scientist I know (and that is quite a few) do not consider it impossible.

None saying it is impossible, which we just dont have enough data to say one way or the other, as I understand it, but that it is implausible to not be in part explained by forces from outside our universe.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

What do you think "it happening" is exactly?

A bunch of molecules inexplicably hurling themselves together to form a flat screen TV is more plausible.

A bunch of chemicals and compounds being stirred, shaken, and lit up with lightning or volcanic heat. Over hundreds of millions of years, the idea that the right combination comes together is not impossible.

The probability approaches ZERO. Mathematicians tell us us that once you reach a high enough number, the probability is essentially zero. The probability of random atoms forming life from non life is higher than the total number of atoms in the observable universe. The impossible is still impossible, no matter how much time you give it.

The nonsense you parrot from your ID'iot creation ministries has long ago been debunked.

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations

Interesting site.

That is game, set and match.

Not hardly.

Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia

The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (for example, if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger), while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable; according to physicist Paul Davies, hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[9] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The existence of the diproton would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all of the Universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang...

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the Universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[1][12]

• N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[12]
• Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of thestrong nuclear force.[13] If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[10][12]
• Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[12][14]
• Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10−122.[15] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant was not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[12]
• Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[12]
• D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4.[12]

Carbon and oxygen[edit]
Further information: Triple-alpha process § Improbability and fine-tuning
An older example is the Hoyle state, the third-lowest energy state of the carbon-12 nucleus, with an energy of 7.656 MeV above the ground level. According to one calculation, if the state's energy were lower than 7.3 or greater than 7.9 MeV, insufficient carbon would exist to support life; furthermore, to explain the universe's abundance of carbon, the Hoyle state must be further tuned to a value between 7.596 and 7.716 MeV. A similar calculation, focusing on the underlying fundamental constants that give rise to various energy levels, concludes that the strong force must be tuned to a precision of at least 0.5%, and the electromagnetic force to a precision of at least 4%, to prevent either carbon production or oxygen production from dropping significantly.[16]

 

[JimBowie1958]

Anthropic principle - Wikipedia

The anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the Universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that this universe has fundamental constants that happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.[1][2] The strong anthropic principle (SAP) as explained by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler states that this is all the case because the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it. ...

The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and parameters of the universe take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this is a necessity, because if life were impossible, no living entity would be there to observe it, and thus would not be known. That is, it must be possible to observe some universe, and hence, the laws and constants of any such universe must accommodate that possibility.



We live in a universe that has some very specific values in order to harbor life as we scientifically know it.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

But the implausibility of random coincidences of astronomical proportions IS MOST CERTAINLY circumstantial proof of a Creator, dude, not to mention the Infinite Regression Fallacy.

Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.

No, it is proof regarding the plausibility of an event.

How many Royal Flushes would a poker dealer have to deal himself before you concluded he was cheating?

Same goes for the existence of God. Eventually the most plausible explanation for the Universe, its order, life and Faith is the existence of God.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.

Sure it is.

How many times would a poker dealer have to give himself a "random" hand of Royal Flushes before you become convinced that he is cheating?

Dont be stupid for rhetorical purposes. It doesnt work.

It is not about it happening over and over. It only had to happen once in hundreds of millions of years.

Wow, i gave almost the same exact response today as I did back then.

Dude, believing in God is a moral choice. There is plenty of evidence that points to Him existing, but few of them are air-tight inescapable proofs. Goid has left yo ua choice to believe or not to believe. You cannot believe as long as you have amoral revulsion in believing.

But each and every fact that sets an unlikely value for the existence of life is a 'poker hand'. To cite the creation of the entire universe is like pointing to the whole poker game, not one hand.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I honestly don't take a goddamn thing you subhuman bastards say about science.

End of discussion...It would be like talking to the taliban.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I honestly don't take a goddamn thing you subhuman bastards say about science.
End of discussion...It would be like talking to the taliban.

Lol, Matthew, most scientists are theists.

Scientists and Belief

Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
​

Are Top Scientists Overwhelmingly Atheists? - Randal Rauser

A study of 642 elite scientists limited their survey to only those born in America. Only 1.4% “listed themselves as atheists or agnostics.” But don’t conclude that the rest were avid church attenders. While over three fourths indicated affiliation with a religious body and over one half attended services two or more times per month, 38.5 % of the total number of scientists answered “no” to the question: “Do you believe in life after death?” Of course, many people who believe in God don’t believe in life after death.​

 

[anotherlife]

I honestly don't take a goddamn thing you subhuman bastards say about science.
End of discussion...It would be like talking to the taliban.

Lol, Matthew, most scientists are theists.

Scientists and Belief

Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
​

Are Top Scientists Overwhelmingly Atheists? - Randal Rauser

A study of 642 elite scientists limited their survey to only those born in America. Only 1.4% “listed themselves as atheists or agnostics.” But don’t conclude that the rest were avid church attenders. While over three fourths indicated affiliation with a religious body and over one half attended services two or more times per month, 38.5 % of the total number of scientists answered “no” to the question: “Do you believe in life after death?” Of course, many people who believe in God don’t believe in life after death.​

Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish. The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death. Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.

 

[SixFoot]

The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

But the implausibility of random coincidences of astronomical proportions IS MOST CERTAINLY circumstantial proof of a Creator, dude, not to mention the Infinite Regression Fallacy.

Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.

No, it is proof regarding the plausibility of an event.

How many Royal Flushes would a poker dealer have to deal himself before you concluded he was cheating?

Same goes for the existence of God. Eventually the most plausible explanation for the Universe, its order, life and Faith is the existence of God.

If superstrings exist in 11 dimensions simultaneously, and multiple dimensions are proven to be at least mathematically likely (current String Theory), then the Universe is all-knowing, because anything that could've happened, is happening, or will happen... has happened, is happening, and will happen.

There is nothing new under the Sun indeed...

 

[SixFoot]

I honestly don't take a goddamn thing you subhuman bastards say about science.
End of discussion...It would be like talking to the taliban.

Lol, Matthew, most scientists are theists.

Scientists and Belief

Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
​

Are Top Scientists Overwhelmingly Atheists? - Randal Rauser

A study of 642 elite scientists limited their survey to only those born in America. Only 1.4% “listed themselves as atheists or agnostics.” But don’t conclude that the rest were avid church attenders. While over three fourths indicated affiliation with a religious body and over one half attended services two or more times per month, 38.5 % of the total number of scientists answered “no” to the question: “Do you believe in life after death?” Of course, many people who believe in God don’t believe in life after death.​

Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish. The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death. Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.

The Sadducees denomination still exists?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If superstrings exist in 11 dimensions simultaneously, and multiple dimensions are proven to be at least mathematically likely (current String Theory), then the Universe is all-knowing, because anything that could've happened, is happening, or will happen... has happened, is happening, and will happen.

The Universe is not sentient, and thus not knowing.

And we have not had the universe long enough for all possibilities to have yet occurred.

For example, Senator Al Franken has not yet found all of his lost marbles.

 

[SixFoot]

If superstrings exist in 11 dimensions simultaneously, and multiple dimensions are proven to be at least mathematically likely (current String Theory), then the Universe is all-knowing, because anything that could've happened, is happening, or will happen... has happened, is happening, and will happen.

The Universe is not sentient, and thus not knowing.

And we have not had the universe long enough for all possibilities to have yet occurred.

For example, Senator Al Franken has not yet found all of his lost marbles.

Depends on how you view God.

 

[anotherlife]

I honestly don't take a goddamn thing you subhuman bastards say about science.
End of discussion...It would be like talking to the taliban.

Lol, Matthew, most scientists are theists.

Scientists and Belief

Indeed, the survey shows that scientists are roughly half as likely as the general public to believe in God or a higher power. According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
​

Are Top Scientists Overwhelmingly Atheists? - Randal Rauser

A study of 642 elite scientists limited their survey to only those born in America. Only 1.4% “listed themselves as atheists or agnostics.” But don’t conclude that the rest were avid church attenders. While over three fourths indicated affiliation with a religious body and over one half attended services two or more times per month, 38.5 % of the total number of scientists answered “no” to the question: “Do you believe in life after death?” Of course, many people who believe in God don’t believe in life after death.​

Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish. The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death. Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.

The Sadducees denomination still exists?

Consider too that atheists are usually Jewish or at least of Jewish ancestry.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem is that something like the origins of life and the universe cannot be experimented on, since they happened in the past. Science cannot answer these questions, and they never will. That's why they make stuff up.

Science cannot prove with empirical certitude how life rose, but it can make informed guesses.

And that is different than just making things up.

That's what an informed guess is. It means they don't know. They have no way of knowing. So they make stuff up.

They take what they do know, and form intelligent, informed guesses.

The entire premise of "It is too complex" is not debunking anything. Its like that nonsense about the human eye being too complicated to have evolved. You actually have to ignore science for that idea to work.

Did you know that the odds of correctly formed amino acids and proteins bumping together and forming the first cell are a number with 5,700 zeros to 1?

The number of subatomic particles in the known Universe is "only" 80 zeros, so the chances against a cell forming at ranodm is a number so large that you can say it's impossible that the cell formed from any random process, it HAD to be created

“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence. Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore” -- Kaku

 

[JimBowie1958]

Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish. The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death. Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.

Oh bull.

Jews are about 2% of the American population, so they cannot be the majority of American scientists in all fields of science.

Catholic Church and science - Wikipedia

Religion and Science in the United States

Religion And Science Can Coexist: Some Scientists Practice More Than The General Public

Study: 2 Million U.S. Scientists Identify As Evangelical

 

[JimBowie1958]

If superstrings exist in 11 dimensions simultaneously, and multiple dimensions are proven to be at least mathematically likely (current String Theory), then the Universe is all-knowing, because anything that could've happened, is happening, or will happen... has happened, is happening, and will happen.

The Universe is not sentient, and thus not knowing.

And we have not had the universe long enough for all possibilities to have yet occurred.

For example, Senator Al Franken has not yet found all of his lost marbles.

Depends on how you view God.

Panentheism is not that widespread because it is not well understood.

And if you can show me where the Universes "brain" might be, perhaps a discussion would be fruitful.

But God (as the Creator) is outside the flow of space/time, not within it. Any definition of God that places Him within the flow of space and time is deficient, lacking His most important Eternal qualities.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The fact that it is unlikely does not make it impossible. It certainly is not any sort of proof of intelligent design.

But the implausibility of random coincidences of astronomical proportions IS MOST CERTAINLY circumstantial proof of a Creator, dude, not to mention the Infinite Regression Fallacy.

Random coincidences facing astronomical odds against it is not proof of anything.

No, it is proof regarding the plausibility of an event.

How many Royal Flushes would a poker dealer have to deal himself before you concluded he was cheating?

Same goes for the existence of God. Eventually the most plausible explanation for the Universe, its order, life and Faith is the existence of God.

If superstrings exist in 11 dimensions simultaneously, and multiple dimensions are proven to be at least mathematically likely (current String Theory), then the Universe is all-knowing, because anything that could've happened, is happening, or will happen... has happened, is happening, and will happen.

There is nothing new under the Sun indeed...

 

[JimBowie1958]

Most American scientists, especially the elite ones, are Jewish. The Jewish religion unlike the other abrahamic ones, has a sect that denies life after death. Those top scientists belong to that Jewish sect.

Consider too that atheists are usually Jewish or at least of Jewish ancestry.

I would really like to see links for these two claims.

Till then I respond similarly; Bah!