Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We probably need to dispel the old usage of the word chance. But then again, what good would come of it? We'd just get the old version, that tired old definition of an undirected, randomized, unstructured set of untimed, unregulated occurrences. Nonetheless, I'll try. I expect to be dismissed and disregarded, but hey; that's a teacher's lot in life, right?
That's not how natural "chance" works, my children. Rather, as regards organic life, you have a set of molecules that do interact in fairly predictable ways. (Why that happens is another issue, but is not in question right now.).
And so, predictably and in accordance to their interactive relationships (positive attracts negative, for the most part, but then the bits have to then "fit" like a jigsaw puzzle). And on a larger scale, items are drawn to each other by micro-nano-gravitional pulls. (Again, we don't yet understand it, but we know it's there). Some fit better than others. And some repel away.
When a random bumping into one another does happen (which, in a richly saturated primordial broth, would have been every second or so, times a gah-zillion molecules and a bah-zillion litres of ocean water, times a quadra-bee-zoolian seconds of opportunity over a billion years of time...) would create happily conjoined larger molecules. When some of those did bump into each other, their fit or mutally beneficial biochemical combination led to lots of them being formed up and just hanging around, being a stable conformation and all.
Then some of them, particularly unfinished ones, pulled others like them, perhaps selecting a mirror imaged partially completed version (happens all the time in organic chemistry, BTW. Splendaâ„¢ is simply a left-handed sugar molecule that the enzymes in your body can't recognize as a digestible right-handed true sugar version, but the receptors in your mouth do! Voila. Sweet Evolution!). It then provided the necessary facilitation to catalyze the completion of a new completed molecule. you know, one that was in a more stable condition. Then, with that change in configuration, and a new stability, it broke apart, leaving two complete molecules.
This would be a "self-reproducing molecule". We tend to call that "life", and it wasn't unfathomable nor occurring by illogical chance. Rather, it was driven by circumstance and molecular structure. As the molecules grew in complexity, they benefited from some simple adaptations, such as motility or the ability to sense simple light. It's rather easy to see how most every complex system arose from a less complex and simple progressive need.
Undirected randomness? Nope. One driven by existing structural stability towards increasing but even more stable and functional complexity? Easily understood given the basics of the original molecules. Stability breeding further stability absent a guiding hand of God?
Easy and even expected and predicted.
so please: let's drop the "stupid man's" version of Chance, OK?
We probably need to dispel the old usage of the word chance. But then again, what good would come of it? We'd just get the old version, that tired old definition of an undirected, randomized, unstructured set of untimed, unregulated occurrences. Nonetheless, I'll try. I expect to be dismissed and disregarded, but hey; that's a teacher's lot in life, right?
That's not how natural "chance" works, my children. Rather, as regards organic life, you have a set of molecules that do interact in fairly predictable ways. (Why that happens is another issue, but is not in question right now.).
AH . . . the old . . . "watch my hands, kids . . . not what is happening behind the curtain" maneuver.
Quote:
And so, predictably and in accordance to their interactive relationships (positive attracts negative, for the most part, but then the bits have to then "fit" like a jigsaw puzzle). And on a larger scale, items are drawn to each other by micro-nano-gravitional pulls. (Again, we don't yet understand it, but we know it's there). Some fit better than others. And some repel away.
And so according to the way God designed them to interact . . . we don't yet understand how they do what they end up doing . . . but we see it all the time.
Quote:
When a random bumping into one another does happen (which, in a richly saturated primordial broth, would have been every second or so, times a gah-zillion molecules and a bah-zillion litres of ocean water, times a quadra-bee-zoolian seconds of opportunity over a billion years of time...) would create happily conjoined larger molecules. When some of those did bump into each other, their fit or mutally beneficial biochemical combination led to lots of them being formed up and just hanging around, being a stable conformation and all.
Wait a minute . . . isn't random = chance or something like it? Don't we use "random" as a placeholder for our ignorance about the actual pattern and order of events because it sounds more scientific . . . and we have mathematical constructs that enable us to use it in some of our models?
Quote:
Then some of them, particularly unfinished ones, pulled others like them, perhaps selecting a mirror imaged partially completed version (happens all the time in organic chemistry, BTW. Splenda™ is simply a left-handed sugar molecule that the enzymes in your body can't recognize as a digestible right-handed true sugar version, but the receptors in your mouth do! Voila. Sweet Evolution!). It then provided the necessary facilitation to catalyze the completion of a new completed molecule. you know, one that was in a more stable condition. Then, with that change in configuration, and a new stability, it broke apart, leaving two complete molecules.
What caused the instability in this stable molecule to make it break apart???
Quote:
This would be a "self-reproducing molecule". We tend to call that "life", and it wasn't unfathomable nor occurring by illogical chance. Rather, it was driven by circumstance and molecular structure. As the molecules grew in complexity, they benefited from some simple adaptations, such as motility or the ability to sense simple light. It's rather easy to see how most every complex system arose from a less complex and simple progressive need.
You are NOT seriously asserting that this scientifically explains abiogenesis are you??? You left a gahzillion bahzillion VERY CRUCIAL steps out . . . NONE of which have ANY scientific explanations. I'm willing to tolerate your simplifications of KNOWN evolutionary processes, rifleman . . . but this goes beyond the pale . . . abiogenesis???
Quote:
Undirected randomness? Nope. One driven by existing structural stability towards increasing but even more stable and functional complexity? Easily understood given the basics of the original molecules. Stability breeding further stability absent a guiding hand of God?
How did you explain the breaking of the stability again? What is the source of the "existing structural stability" . . . and its movement to increasing complexity? Doesn't stable MEAN . . it is stable?
Quote:
Easy and even expected and predicted.
Enlighten us if it is so easy.
Quote:
so please: let's drop the "stupid man's" version of Chance, OK?
Epic fail, rifleman . . . you couldn't even represent what we DO KNOW honestly. You did nothing to aid the knowledge of or acceptance of evolution with this disingenuous and deceptive crap designed only to ignore the true source of the design, direction and guidance in the processes. Shame on you.
Well this is nice. I come back after a few hours and what do I see.
No proof of nontheistic (or chance) origins. But plenty of ridicule of religion and God. Not to mention a few ad hominem attacks on yours truely.
Somehow I am not surprised.
I will concede that I was off on the Carbon Dating. Articles say it is good up to 26,000 years so I stand corrected.
Actually, it's good for up to about 60,000 years, and more delicate and precise algorithms are extending that range. But frankly we have other means that co-support long lives. Even 50k years has proven that dinos and men didn't co-exist. Not that the bible even mentions them, they having pre-dated that austere book by thousands of millenia.
As to your other complaint, and aside from Mystic's disingenuous dismissal (), I did try to explain the methods and evidence. You just didn't read it. And I went to all that trouble! Hey; I predicted that it would be dismissed.
Mystic, imagine a shorter several-sentence answer from me: There. Unlikely, huh? But then, the wild quail's under the broiler, along with a nicely chilled Chardonnay and some grilled asparagus.
Anyhow: a molecular structure may be in an unstable form until it acquires a missing molecule. When it's technically unstable is is potentially polarized (i.e.: has positive and a negative "ends" and is thus potentially attrative or attracting to other polarized molecules. Such as water. or an identical but also unfulfilled molecule. And so they dance.).
Once they do come together and "fill in the blanks", they may then shift the positions of their components into a final stable position, and then they loose their polarity and thus disssociate. Happily. Then, a catalyzing molecule may well disrupt that happy stability and re-polarize them.
Now you might wish to argue this, but it's easily proven in the lab, and is in fact the benchmark method of enzymatic dissolution, of the breakdown of certain digestible proteins, or of how some antibiotics work, by molecularly destablizing the cell wall of the antigenic protein. All absent any Godly hand.
Well, I'm off to enjoy the fruits of my labors. Enjoy your evenings, fellow travelers!
Actually, it's good for up to about 60,000 years, and more delicate and precise algorithms are extending that range. But frankly we have other means that co-support long lives. Even 50k years has proven that dinos and men didn't co-exist. Not that the bible even mentions them, they having pre-dated that austere book by thousands of millenia.
As to your other complaint, and aside from Mystic's disingenuous dismissal (), I did try to explain the methods and evidence. You just didn't read it. And I went to all that trouble! Hey; I predicted that it would be dismissed.
Mystic, imagine a shorter several-sentence answer from me: There. Unlikely, huh? But then, the wild quail's under the broiler, along with a nicely chilled Chardonnay and some grilled asparagus.
Anyhow: a molecular structure may be in an unstable form until it acquires a missing molecule. When it's technically unstable is is potentially polarized (i.e.: has positive and a negative "ends" and is thus potentially attrative or attracting to other polarized molecules. Such as water. or an identical but also unfulfilled molecule. And so they dance.).
Once they do come together and "fill in the blanks", they may then shift the positions of their components into a final stable position, and then they loose their polarity and thus disssociate. Happily. Then, a catalyzing molecule may well disrupt that happy stability and re-polarize them.
Now you might wish to argue this, but it's easily proven in the lab, and is in fact the benchmark method of enzymatic dissolution, of the breakdown of certain digestible proteins, or of how some antibiotics work, by molecularly destablizing the cell wall of the antigenic protein. All absent any Godly hand.
Well, I'm off to enjoy the fruits of my labors. Enjoy your evenings, fellow travelers!
Science discovers what God has created. Including the laws of Chemistry.
Agnostic soldier why are u agnostic and not atheist?
I'm an atheist. It was someone's screen name on a different forum I was looking at a few years ago. I had liked the name for no particular reason so I made it my screen name for this forum.
Science discovers what God has created. Including the laws of Chemistry.
You write well, but have no answer.
God's laws is nothing more than your preacher's laws -- you have been "raised and taught" by the preacher who makes laws on behave of God (he says everything he wants to then labels them as God's words).
Do you have any evidence to prove that the universe came to be by chance?
If you can prove that the universe came to be by chance, that would go a long way towards proving that atheism is true and there is probably no God.
I give much more credibility to the 10's of thousands of scientists that are learning more and more about the universe, its creation, and that is 14 billion years old, than some man that believed the earth was flat, the sun and everything circled around the earth, scratching on some crude paper with a quill pen 2,000+ years ago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.