young earth creationists. how does your mind work?

Who is "we"?

 

Following one Religion 101 with another, now that's just plain dumb.

 

top scientists in their field.

 

10 years passed by and you two still debating the God thing?


just listen to an extraterrestrial Bashar:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/FBcr-qRWXCc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and you'll gain some decent insight

 

There's no debate. It's been an observation for a while now on how completely absurd Jem can get.

 

absurd to you because you are stuck in 1950s random chance thought.

 

Name them

However, Jem, if you believe that existence and life owes itself to a Creator that is fine. I have nothing against that personal belief. I do oppose attempts to proselytize this point of view through
questionable science, like non testable hypotheses such as Penrose's calculation. Believers may call upon science to promote its God centered systems, but in doing so they must adhere to scientific principles and methods. A creator as the default answer because science has not given a definitive and convincing answer to the origin of the universe is hollow and tells us nothing. Your hypothesis is that a creator is responsible for the universe; find a way to positively test your hypothesis rather calling a upon Penrose's dubious calculations and arriving at the "what else can it be" declaration, which is an inference by negation. Maybe there is a creator, and maybe there isn't. Or maybe there is a 3rd possibility which we cannot fathom because it appears illogical.

As to your claims that life could not have arisen from non life, I will look into experiments which attempted to reproduce primitive pre-biotic earth conditions. So far I have found one which resulted in Rna bases:


From urea to nucleobases: Freeze–thaw cycles in urea (1) solutions under methane/nitrogen atmospheres lead, with application of an energy source, to the synthesis of pyrimidines (mainly cytosine (2) and uracil (3)), triazines (such as cyanuric acid (4)), and adenine. This synthesis appears to be dependent on the atmosphere and the freezing conditions. At room temperature, hydantoin (5) is obtained. However, a freezing urea/water system subjected to an energy source under an inert atmosphere generates s-triazines.


Herein, we report the efficient synthesis of RNA bases and functionalized s-triazines from 0.1&#8201;M urea solutions in water after subjection to freeze–thaw cycles for three weeks. The icy solution was under a reductive, methane-based atmosphere, which was subjected to spark discharges as an energy source for the first 72&#8197;h of the experiment. Analysis of the products indicates the synthesis of the s-triazines cyanuric acid, ammeline, ammelide, and melamine, the pyrimidines cytosine, uracil, and 2,4-diaminopyrimidine, and the purine adenine. An experiment performed as a control at room temperature, with the urea solution in the liquid phase and with the same atmosphere and energy source, led to the synthesis of hydantoins and insoluble tholin, but there was no evidence of the synthesis of pyrimidines or triazines. The synthesis of pyrimidines from urea is possible under a methane/nitrogen atmosphere only at low temperature, in the solid phase. The generation of both pyrimidines and triazines in comparable yields from urea, together with a possible role for triazines as alternative nucleobases, opens new perspectives on the prebiotic chemistry of informational polymers.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=68E15B9065531400F7DDE4EE85D57085.d03t03

 

Religion 101 three times on the trot. You can't help yourself can you.

 

you have distorted my argument that is a bullshit way to debate this issue.

I have stated that the world top scientists are stating our universe appears designed...

I provided Hawkings paper on this thread, I have provided video to Penrose, quotes from Carr... video where Dawkings says as much.

And I bring you quotes and video from Susskind, Weinberg and many others. Pretty much the only top scientists I have found who disputes the fine tuning of our universe is Stenger... but his argument is not internally consistent... and boils down to multiverse....

and additional in the bio field many have stated it is very unlikely we have non life evolved into life by random chance.



Quote from jem:


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

 

l kabong, nice science snipet... buy you realize you are a long way from showing a complete pathway from non life to life by random chance. a really long way.