young earth creationists. how does your mind work?

you are calling these guys creationists...
leftists know no shame.




http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to
be plausible, hence there must be some deeper explanation that we are yet to
discover, given which the origin of life is atleastreasonably likely. Perhaps we
have little idea yet what form this explanation will take—although of course it
will not appeal to the work of a rational agent; this is would be a desperate
last resort, if an option at all—but we have every reason to look for such an
explanation, for we have every reason to think there is one.
In a detailed survey of the field, Iris Fry (1995, 2000) argues that although
the disagreements among origin of life theorists run very deep, relating to the
most basic features of the models they propose, the view sketched above is a
fundamental unifying assumption (one which Fry strongly endorses). Some
researchers in the field are even more optimistic of course. They believe that
they have already found the explanation, or at least have a good head start
on it. But their commitment to the thesis above is epistemically more basic,
in the sense that it motivated their research in the first place and even if their
theories were shown to be false, they would retain this basic assumption.
3
There is a very small group of detractors, whom Fry (1995) calls the “Almosta Miracle Camp” including Francis Crick (1981), ErnstMayr (1982),
and Jaques Monod (1974), who appear to be content with the idea that life
arose by chance even if the probability of this happening is extremely low.
4
According to Crick “the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a
miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to been satisfied
to get it going” (1981: 88); the emergence of life was nevertheless a “happy
accident” (p. 14).
5
According to Mayr, “a full realization of the near impossibility of an origin of life brings home the point of how improbable this
event was.” (1982: 45). Monod famously claimed that although the probability of life arising by chance was “virtually zero. . .our number came up in the
Monte Carlo game” (1974: 137). Life, as Monod puts it, is “chance caught
on a wing” (p. 78). That is, although natural selection took over early to produce the diversity of life, its origin was nothing but an incredibly improbable
fluke.Does Origins of Life Research Rest on a Mistake? 459
However, the vast majority of experts in the field clearly define their work
in opposition to this view. The more common attitude is summed up neatly
by J. D. Bernal.
[T]he question, could life have originated by a chance occurrence of atoms,
clearly leads to a negative answer. This answer, combined with the knowledge
that life is actually here, leads to the conclusion that some sequences other than
chance occurrences must have led to the appearances of life. (quoted in Fry 2000:
153)
Having calculated the staggering improbability of life’s emergence by chance,
Manfred Eigen (1992) concludes,
The genes found today cannot have arisen randomly, as it were by the throw of
a dice. There must exist a process of optimization that works toward functional
efficiency. Even if there are several routes to optimal efficiency, mere trial and
error cannotbe one of them. (p. 11)
It is from this conclusion that Eigen motivates his search for a physical principle that does not leave the emergence of life up to blind chance, hence
making itreproducible in principle:
The physical principle that we are looking for should be in a position to explain
the complexity typical of the phenomena of life at the level of molecular structures and syntheses. It should show how such complex molecular arrangements
are able to form reproducibly in Nature. (p. 11)
According to Christian de Duve (1991),
. . .unless one adopts a creationist view,. . .life arose through the succession of an
enormous number of small steps, almost each of which, given the condition at
the time had a very high probability of happening. . .the alternative amounts to
a miracle. . .were [the emergence of life] not an obligatory manifestation of the
combinatorial properties of matter, it could not possibly have arisen naturally.
(p. 217)
Not all theorists follow De Duve so far as suggesting that life’s emergence
mustbe inevitable. While nota specialistin the area, Richard Dawkins (1987)
captures the attitude that appears to dominate scientific research into life’s
origin. According to Dawkins,
All who have given thought to the matter agree that an apparatus as complex as
the human eye could not possibly come into existence through [a single chance
event]. Unfortunately the same seems to be true of at least parts of the apparatus
of cellular machinery whereby DNA replicates itself (p. 140)460 NOUS ˆ
In considering how the first self-replicating machinery arose, Dawkins asks
“Whatis the largestsingle eventof sheer naked coincidence, sheer unadulterated miraculous luck, that we are allowed to get away with in our theories,
and still say that we have a satisfactory explanation of life?” (p. 141) And
he answers that there are strict limits on the “ration of luck” that we are
allowed to postulate in our theories.
6
According to Dawkins, an examination
of the immense complexity of the most basic mechanisms required for DNA
replication is sufficient to see that any theory which makes its existence a
highly improbable fluke is unbelievable, quite apart from what alternative
explanations are on the table


http://web.mit.edu/rog/www/papers/does_origins.pdf

 

jem, you may want to look at this. Every single one of these theories involve random processes. That is, they just happened. Out of all the random chemical reactions and the multiple environmental conditions some were just right to create life.

I don't care how many scientists you trot out that supposedly say randomness has no place, such a statement would be wrong and virtually no researcher in the field today would say such a thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

 

Think about that statement. "We now know that the probability of life arising by chance is far too low to be plausible."

I am not part of the "we" in that statement, nor are a majority of
serious scientists. But the burden of proof is on you and the rest that constitute the "we"

I find it extraordinary that you could calculate the probability of life arriving by chance. And by implication life arriving not by chance. Probabilities have to total 1. P(of lifebychance) -1 + P (oflifenotbychance) = 1. You seem know all the probabilities concerning the emergence of life. Please share those with us.

Tell us what the probability is that life emerged by chance and the probability that it did not. There are two possibilities. Chance + not chance =1. Break it down for us.

If life has any probability by chance, what's the point of a creator?
If life needs a creator, as you suggest, then life arriving by probability MUST BE ZERO! It can't be low. It MUST BE ZERO!

"If the probability of life arriving by chance is so low...." Then there is no creator, for there is a chance that there is no creator. That is, if there is a creator, there is no chance of a non creator.
Either there is a creator or there is not a creator. If there is not a creator, the chance of a creator is 0. If there is a creator, the chance of a creator is 1.

If life requires a creator, the chance of life arising spontaneously
without a creator cannot be incredibly low. It must be zero.

If the chance that life can arise spontaneously is incredibly low, then by definition it can arise spontaneously free of a creative intervention. If it can arise spontaneously AND it can arise from that action of a creator, then the creator resides within the system in which we find life and is not above it.

 

are you kidding me... you must not understand what your are reading.
until you have a complete pathway to life... which we do not have... you could not say life evolved by random processes.

 

"science is giving christians new and interesting gaps for them to cram their ever-diminishing god into – but the inevitable effect of that is to make the god they’re arguing for the nebulous existence of so far removed from the god of the bible as to make it a completely separate entity."

 

this may be a a gap...

the fact that the universe appears incredibly fine tuned to the top scientists in the world... that is not a gap... that is a signature.

 

I just provided you a survey of statements from the leading scientists in the field. You arguing with them. They pretty much state... it does not look like random chance could have done it... but they do not know what could.

Others have and are now more frequently suggesting directed evolution.

in other words... the drive for life was programmed into the material or the environment. Christian De Duve (noble prize I believe) has written and spoken on that subject.

so the question then becomes... does the directed part... prove a creator... or is it possible the programming for life got here by chance?

 

you are demonstrating the one thing you are not able to grasp.: lack of evidence is not evidence.
it looks too complicated to have happened naturally(to you) ie god did it.

Richard Dawkins: Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

 

you got it wrong..

the evidence is that to the large marjority of scientists in the field the universe appears very finely tune...

The lack fi there is one... is a lack of evidence showing there is no Designer.

We may someday fine almost infinite other universes or
We may find some sort of universal scientific theory which explains the tuning...

but for now... you have evidence of Design. That is a signature not a gap.

“If there is only one universe,” British cosmologist Bernard Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” (Discover, December 2008)

 

I still like the idea that since God is in charge of everything, and He made Obama the President, then all is good with Heaven and Earth.

I'm sorry Jem, I respect everyone's right to believe whatever they want when it comes to Religion. Just needs to be kept out or policy and politics, IMO.

Just having some fun with it. And, really, wouldn't everyone want to know that there is a benevolent and kind God, and a Heaven to go to?