Gravity and God

tyroneweaver

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2012
Messages
19,988
Reaction score
4,274
Points
280
Location
Burley, Idaho
So what does gravity and God have in common? Both are immaterial. No atoms. No particles. Gravity is just mass warping empty space. That still give me a headache trying to wrap my mind around it. Why then do we all accept gravity exists? It's because every day we are witness to its effects. There has not been one second in a day when we were not reminded of the effects of gravity, so its existence, its power, goes unquestioned.

But can the effects of God also be seen? Consider this, the odds of a living cell coming about by chance on its own is 10 to the 164rth power. To say that these odds are astronomical is an understatement.

I believe God is corporeal as well as His Son Jesus Christ.
Then you would be like the Hindus in that sense, with Jesus being an Avatar, or Aeon of God. But of course, God is Good in Norse, literally. God translates to Good. And in Rosicrucian Philosophy, We, the Corpus Christ, are manifestations of the Great and Holy Spirit, which may be called The Alpha Omega, TAO.
Luke 24:36-39
 

Gantlemagne

Active Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
813
Reaction score
188
Points
43
Location
Acadia
Are you having doubts, as Thomas did? Or is this an affirmation for you?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,529
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,130
So what does gravity and God have in common? Both are immaterial. No atoms. No particles. Gravity is just mass warping empty space. That still give me a headache trying to wrap my mind around it. Why then do we all accept gravity exists? It's because every day we are witness to its effects. There has not been one second in a day when we were not reminded of the effects of gravity, so its existence, its power, goes unquestioned.

But can the effects of God also be seen? Consider this, the odds of a living cell coming about by chance on its own is 10 to the 164rth power. To say that these odds are astronomical is an understatement.

This silly youtube video has all the supernatural creationist nonsense one finds at any of the extremist creationist ministries.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,529
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,130
We can see the effects of gravity and predict those effects to a very high degree of accuracy over vast astronomical distance.

It's much more difficult, nigh impossible, to make any predictions or formulate laws on how G-d effects us.

Despite the fact we've been dealing with G-d for all of time, his ways remain mysterious.
But some scientists claim to know how life started yet cannot duplicate it.

So instead of creating life that is "random", you would think they would at least be able with intelligent design be able to reduce the odds of creating a single cell.
Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?
 

Gantlemagne

Active Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
813
Reaction score
188
Points
43
Location
Acadia
We can see the effects of gravity and predict those effects to a very high degree of accuracy over vast astronomical distance.

It's much more difficult, nigh impossible, to make any predictions or formulate laws on how G-d effects us.

Despite the fact we've been dealing with G-d for all of time, his ways remain mysterious.
But some scientists claim to know how life started yet cannot duplicate it.

So instead of creating life that is "random", you would think they would at least be able with intelligent design be able to reduce the odds of creating a single cell.
Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?
But if you read the Corpus Hermeticum, you'll see that Science is a tool for learning the Gnosis of God, Nature. Not all religions, aye that I call what I believe faith and not religion as laws of living are better suited being labeled Civil Law, are as close minded as one thinks. But when you think of TAO, or the Great and Holy Spirit, the Great Mystery, Wanka Tanka, as being the All, both Time and Energy, God and Nature, the Spirit which orders the Physical Universe by specific laws, then you can be inspired to discover these Universal laws as the ancients once did, and as We, at least Europe, began to again in the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
184
Points
73
So what does gravity and God have in common? Both are immaterial. No atoms. No particles. Gravity is just mass warping empty space. That still give me a headache trying to wrap my mind around it. Why then do we all accept gravity exists? It's because every day we are witness to its effects. There has not been one second in a day when we were not reminded of the effects of gravity, so its existence, its power, goes unquestioned.

But can the effects of God also be seen? Consider this, the odds of a living cell coming about by chance on its own is 10 to the 164rth power. To say that these odds are astronomical is an understatement.

It depends on how you are calculating the probability - 10^164 is probably for an informational protein rather than a statistical protein.

Eddington calculated our visible universe's mass in 10^79 amu (atomic mass units).
 
Last edited:

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
184
Points
73
Pa
So what does gravity and God have in common? Both are immaterial. No atoms. No particles. Gravity is just mass warping empty space. That still give me a headache trying to wrap my mind around it. Why then do we all accept gravity exists? It's because every day we are witness to its effects. There has not been one second in a day when we were not reminded of the effects of gravity, so its existence, its power, goes unquestioned.

But can the effects of God also be seen? Consider this, the odds of a living cell coming about by chance on its own is 10 to the 164rth power. To say that these odds are astronomical is an understatement.

Theoretically gravity is a particle.
Particle vs. wave. Scientists have confirmed gravitational waves - see;


Excerpt:

"Gravitational waves were first directly detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in 2015."

I'll let you post on gravitons.

Most people do not fully appreciate the gravity of the matter. (pun intended)

Bottom line: Gravity is invisible (so is dark energy). God is invisible.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,529
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,130
We can see the effects of gravity and predict those effects to a very high degree of accuracy over vast astronomical distance.

It's much more difficult, nigh impossible, to make any predictions or formulate laws on how G-d effects us.

Despite the fact we've been dealing with G-d for all of time, his ways remain mysterious.
But some scientists claim to know how life started yet cannot duplicate it.

So instead of creating life that is "random", you would think they would at least be able with intelligent design be able to reduce the odds of creating a single cell.
Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?
But if you read the Corpus Hermeticum, you'll see that Science is a tool for learning the Gnosis of God, Nature. Not all religions, aye that I call what I believe faith and not religion as laws of living are better suited being labeled Civil Law, are as close minded as one thinks. But when you think of TAO, or the Great and Holy Spirit, the Great Mystery, Wanka Tanka, as being the All, both Time and Energy, God and Nature, the Spirit which orders the Physical Universe by specific laws, then you can be inspired to discover these Universal laws as the ancients once did, and as We, at least Europe, began to again in the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Gnosticism is an interesting idea but ultimately, the notion that Gods and Spirits order the Physical Universe by specific laws is just another appeal to irrationality.

I see a way out of the irrationality that blankets humanity (which is a point I’ll make-- it’s not the rationality that makes a mess of things, it’s the irrationality), and at the same time accept the emotional traits of the human being that make the irrational possible. I speak of a journey of the human being, not where we are right now at this particular moment. I see the human condition as an evolving one; we once burned people as satanic witches because of the irrational. The rational drove that where it belonged: away. We once believed the earth the center of the universe (although, if the universe is infinite, then every point is the center), at least we believed the earth to be the center of the solar system. Reason put that aside. I could go on forever, but the damage done to humanity by irrational beliefs has a long, lurid history. I am simply presenting my side of the issue with empirical data as my support system.
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
39,665
Reaction score
7,879
Points
1,140
Pa
So what does gravity and God have in common? Both are immaterial. No atoms. No particles. Gravity is just mass warping empty space. That still give me a headache trying to wrap my mind around it. Why then do we all accept gravity exists? It's because every day we are witness to its effects. There has not been one second in a day when we were not reminded of the effects of gravity, so its existence, its power, goes unquestioned.

But can the effects of God also be seen? Consider this, the odds of a living cell coming about by chance on its own is 10 to the 164rth power. To say that these odds are astronomical is an understatement.

Theoretically gravity is a particle.
Particle vs. wave. Scientists have confirmed gravitational waves - see;


Excerpt:

"Gravitational waves were first directly detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in 2015."

I'll let you post on gravitons.

Most people do not fully appreciate the gravity of the matter. (pun intended)

Bottom line: Gravity is invisible (so is dark energy). God is invisible.
And yet, a particle as well?

Like light.
 

Gantlemagne

Active Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
813
Reaction score
188
Points
43
Location
Acadia
We can see the effects of gravity and predict those effects to a very high degree of accuracy over vast astronomical distance.

It's much more difficult, nigh impossible, to make any predictions or formulate laws on how G-d effects us.

Despite the fact we've been dealing with G-d for all of time, his ways remain mysterious.
But some scientists claim to know how life started yet cannot duplicate it.

So instead of creating life that is "random", you would think they would at least be able with intelligent design be able to reduce the odds of creating a single cell.
Human history is littered with gods which have been abandoned as science has found natural causes for events in nature. You realize that the gods of thunder and lightning are not actually real, right?
But if you read the Corpus Hermeticum, you'll see that Science is a tool for learning the Gnosis of God, Nature. Not all religions, aye that I call what I believe faith and not religion as laws of living are better suited being labeled Civil Law, are as close minded as one thinks. But when you think of TAO, or the Great and Holy Spirit, the Great Mystery, Wanka Tanka, as being the All, both Time and Energy, God and Nature, the Spirit which orders the Physical Universe by specific laws, then you can be inspired to discover these Universal laws as the ancients once did, and as We, at least Europe, began to again in the Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Gnosticism is an interesting idea but ultimately, the notion that Gods and Spirits order the Physical Universe by specific laws is just another appeal to irrationality.

I see a way out of the irrationality that blankets humanity (which is a point I’ll make-- it’s not the rationality that makes a mess of things, it’s the irrationality), and at the same time accept the emotional traits of the human being that make the irrational possible. I speak of a journey of the human being, not where we are right now at this particular moment. I see the human condition as an evolving one; we once burned people as satanic witches because of the irrational. The rational drove that where it belonged: away. We once believed the earth the center of the universe (although, if the universe is infinite, then every point is the center), at least we believed the earth to be the center of the solar system. Reason put that aside. I could go on forever, but the damage done to humanity by irrational beliefs has a long, lurid history. I am simply presenting my side of the issue with empirical data as my support system.
Reconciling Heaven with Volcan (planet Earth) is important to stop the irrational hatred. I see God and Nature as TAO (The Alpha Omega) and Tengrism reveals that the Constant of Light is the Sum of Enthalpy and Time, and the Material All is the Constant of Energy and Time, and Time simply is TAO... if you know your Norse runes. If God is Love, then God is Eros, and the Natural Order of the Universe is Love. Attraction is what keeps molecules together, creates all that is by the act of bonding atoms. Thinking of God in an Abrahamic sense is not the key. Think of God in the Norse sense, God is Good in Norse, God is Odin, Osiris.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
184
Points
73
Votto - concerning your OP see my post 46 - but I did not address your link:


Excerpt:

"Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin
Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful."

Illustra Media - Origin - The Mathematics of Origin

Your link is very extensive, with many links referenced. Did you want me to address any of the many points and/or links referenced?

For example, this reference:

b Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology 2004 Aug 27;341(5):1295-315.
 

Gantlemagne

Active Member
Joined
May 7, 2020
Messages
813
Reaction score
188
Points
43
Location
Acadia
Votto - concerning your OP see my post 46 - but I did not address your link:


Excerpt:

"Mathematical Basis for Probability Calculations Used in (the film) Origin
Excerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful."

Illustra Media - Origin - The Mathematics of Origin

Your link is very extensive, with many links referenced. Did you want me to address any of the many points and/or links referenced?

For example, this reference:

b Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology 2004 Aug 27;341(5):1295-315.
Here's another instance of Love and Eros being referenced as the Order of the Universe, from... a little after 500 BC.

I found the Parmenides fragments.

8.1 There is a solitary word still
8.2 Left to say of a way: 'exists'; very many signs
8.3 Are on this road: that Being is ungenerated and imperishable,
8.4 Whole, unique, immovable, and complete.
8.5 It was not once nor will it be, since it is now altogether,
8.6 One, continuous. For, what origin could you search out for it?
8.7 How and whence did it grow? Not from non-Being shall I allow
8.8 You to say or to think, for it is not possible to say or to think
8.9 That it is not. What need would have made it grow,
8.10 Beginning from non-Being, later or sooner?
8.11 Thus it must either fully be or not.
8.12 Nor will the force of conviction ever permit anything to come to be from what is not,
8.13 besides it. For this reason, Justice permitted it neither to come to be
8.14 nor to perish, relaxing her shackles,
8.15 but holds fast. But the decision about these matters lies in this:
8.16 it is or it is not. But it has been decided, as is necessary,
8.17 to let go the one way as unthinkable and nameless (for it is not a true
8.18 way) and that the other is and is real.
8.19 How could what is be in the future ? How could it come to be ?
8.20 For if it came into being, it is not, not if it is ever going to be
8.21 So, coming into being is extinguished and perishing is unheard of.
8.22 Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike.
8.23 Nor is there somewhat more here and somewhat less there that could prevent it from holding together;
8.24 But all is full of Being.
8.25 Therefore it is all continuous, for Being is in contact with Being.
8.26 But unchanging in the limits of great bonds,
8.27 it is, without start or finish, since coming to be and destruction
8.28 were banished far away and true conviction drove them off.
8.29 Remaining the same and by itself it lies
8.30 and so stays there fixed ; for mighty Necessity
8.26 But motionless in the limits of mighty bonds
8.27 It is without beginning and never-ending, since coming into being and perishing
8.28 Have been banished far away, driven out by true conviction.
8.29 Since it remains the same and in the same, it lies by itself
8.30 And abides so firmly where it is; for powerful Necessity
8.31 Holds it in the bonds of the limit which encircles Being,
8.32 Because it is not right for Being to be incomplete,
8.33 For it is not in need; if it were it would need all.
8.34 It is the same to think and the thought that [the object of thought] exists,
8.35 For without Being, in what has been expressed,
8.36 You will not find thought; for nothing other, besides Being, either is or will be,
8.37 Since Destiny fettered it
8.38 To be whole and immovable;
8.39 Therefore, all that mortals posited convinced that it is true will be [mere] name,
8.40 Coming into being and perishing, to be and not to be,
8.41 Change of place and exchange of brilliant color.
8.42 But since there is a furthest limit, it is in every direction complete;
8.43 Like the body of a well-rounded sphere,
8.44 From the middle everywhere of equal strength; for it need not be somewhat more here
8.45 Or somewhat less there,
8.46 For neither is there non-Being to prevent it from reaching
8.47 Its like, nor is there Being so that it could be
8.48 More than Being here and less than Being there, since it is all inviolable;
8.49 For from every point it is equal to itself, staying uniformly in the limits."
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,546
Reaction score
4,879
Points
1,870
Consider this, the odds of a living cell coming about by chance on its own is 10 to the 164rth power.
Ha...this is silly. And arbitrary.

Look at a star on the sky. The odds of that star existing right there and made up of the exact mix of materials that constitute it are almost zero. But there is the star. Right there.

This arbitrary designation of odds is a fallacy. You can use this fallacy to cause the probability of any event to approach zero.

And selection isn't random, anyway. That star is round for a reason; the laws of the universe select for spheroids, in the case of stars. That star contains the materials it does for a reason; the laws of the universe selected for a region to collapse into that star, and selected for the materials in that region.

Similarly, the laws of the universe will select for some molecules to persist, some to react, some to replicate.

"On its own"

A very odd phrase. Does a planet orbit a star "on its own"? It would be odd to say so. Physical laws acted on molecules and made cells. They didn't make themselves.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
184
Points
73
Consider this, the odds of a living cell coming about by chance on its own is 10 to the 164rth power.
Ha...this is silly. And arbitrary.

Look at a star on the sky. The odds of that star existing right there and made up of the exact mix of materials that constitute it are almost zero. But there is the star. Right there.

This arbitrary designation of odds is a fallacy. You can use this fallacy to cause the probability of any event to approach zero.

And selection isn't random, anyway. That star is round for a reason; the laws of the universe select for spheroids, in the case of stars. That star contains the materials it does for a reason; the laws of the universe selected for a region to collapse into that star, and selected for the materials in that region.

Similarly, the laws of the universe will select for some molecules to persist, some to react, some to replicate.

"On its own"

A very odd phrase. Does a planet orbit a star "on its own"? It would be odd to say so. Physical laws acted on molecules and made cells. They didn't make themselves.
Actually, probability and statistics is a legitimate scientific study. As is the synthesis of a large number of a specific chemical in a specific chemical reaction.

On your specific example: stars are far more probable to come into existence than the correct chirality and isomerization of an amino acid used in proteins. Your example would compare to the location of a specific amino acid molecule in a sample of chemical reaction products - not the probability of its existence which would be comparable to a specific type of star's existence (e.g. magnetars).

Why do you suppose formic acid is the primary chemical reaction product in Miller-Urey type origin of life synthesis experiments? The proportion of the various products including Urea, formic acid and various amino acids is predictable because of the law of large numbers.

And because of the fine tuned laws and properties of our universe - Job 38:33

However, your point holds water as to the exact location of any chemical reaction product single molecule in the sample. Btw - water reacts with HCN to produce formic acid in two steps (via formamide) - a simple fact of chemistry ignored or suppressed by chemical evolutionists.

Bottom line - the law of large numbers is strong when the number of steps leading to an amino acid is involved. Of course, the standard deviation from predicted probability is very low in large samples - true in testing vaccines as well.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,546
Reaction score
4,879
Points
1,870
Actually, probability and statistics is a legitimate scientific study.
Yes, of course it is.
As is the synthesis of a large number of a specific chemical in a specific chemical reaction.
Well, show me an experiment where you do it trillions of times per second for a few hundred million years. Then get back to me. ONce there was no life, then there was life. What connects these two states is abiogenesis. By definition. You're not going to talk your way into a magical explanation for that.
stars are far more probable to come into existence than the correct chirality and isomerization of an amino acid used in proteins.
And right away.... headlong into the fallacy... "The odds of this thing being exactly like this at exactly this time and place approach zero!". It's just a tired reiteration of Zeno's paradoxes. "Every event more improbable than the last!" It's gibberish.
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
184
Points
73
Pr
Actually, probability and statistics is a legitimate scientific study.
Yes, of course it is.
As is the synthesis of a large number of a specific chemical in a specific chemical reaction.
Well, show me an experiment where you do it trillions of times per second for a few hundred million years. Then get back to me. ONce there was no life, then there was life. What connects these two states is abiogenesis. By definition. You're not going to talk your way into a magical explanation for that.
stars are far more probable to come into existence than the correct chirality and isomerization of an amino acid used in proteins.
And right away.... headlong into the fallacy... "The odds of this thing being exactly like this at exactly this time and place approach zero!". It's just a tired reiteration of Zeno's paradoxes. "Every event more improbable than the last!" It's gibberish.
The law of large numbers in probability and statistics is not gibberish. Chemical reactions do involve large numbers of reactions per second. And the simple fact that formic acid was the primary chemical reaction product in Miller's experiment demonstrates the law of large numbers and the validity of probability.

The certainty that formic acid will be the primary product is proof of the law of large numbers.

It is also proof of hydrolysis (adding of water molecules) in chemical reactions where water is present (as in the famous Miller-Urey experiment.) It is one of many chemical reactions that dead end potential chemical pathways to amino acids. One such reaction:

HCN + H20 yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid.

I will post some of the other hydrolysis reactions ignored by chemical evolutionists in my next post:
 

Newtonian

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
184
Points
73
You all - I already posted that evolutionists fail to mention that water destroys chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. This is linked to another deception, namely the failure to note that the primary chemical reaction product in the famous Miller-Urey experiment was formic acid, as well as the fact that most of the amino acids Miller synthesized are not used in proteins, and that only Alanine and Glycine were synthesized in a significant product proportion.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

1. HCN to Cyanogen (C2N2) + H2O yields cyanoformamide (C2H2N2O) + H2O yields ethanediamide (C2H4N2O2)

2. HCN to dicyanamide (C2N3) + H2O yields cyanourea (C2H3N3O) + H2O yields Biuret (C2H5N3O2 )

3. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields Urea (CO(NH2)2 = CH4N2O = NH2CONH2)

4. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields carbodiimide (RN=C=NR.) + H2O yields Urea

[Note: The carbodiimide dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (C13H22N2 ) is used in peptide synthesis,"]

5. HCN + H2O yields formamide (CH3NO) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH₂O₂)

6. HCN + H2O yields formamidine (CH4N2 ) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH2O2)

7. HCN to Cyanoacetylene (C3HN) + H2O yields Cyanoacetaldehide (C3H3NO).

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,529
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,130
You all - I already posted that evolutionists fail to mention that water destroys chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. This is linked to another deception, namely the failure to note that the primary chemical reaction product in the famous Miller-Urey experiment was formic acid, as well as the fact that most of the amino acids Miller synthesized are not used in proteins, and that only Alanine and Glycine were synthesized in a significant product proportion.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

1. HCN to Cyanogen (C2N2) + H2O yields cyanoformamide (C2H2N2O) + H2O yields ethanediamide (C2H4N2O2)

2. HCN to dicyanamide (C2N3) + H2O yields cyanourea (C2H3N3O) + H2O yields Biuret (C2H5N3O2 )

3. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields Urea (CO(NH2)2 = CH4N2O = NH2CONH2)

4. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields carbodiimide (RN=C=NR.) + H2O yields Urea

[Note: The carbodiimide dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (C13H22N2 ) is used in peptide synthesis,"]

5. HCN + H2O yields formamide (CH3NO) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH₂O₂)

6. HCN + H2O yields formamidine (CH4N2 ) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH2O2)

7. HCN to Cyanoacetylene (C3HN) + H2O yields Cyanoacetaldehide (C3H3NO).

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?
Another of the deceptions furthered by creationists is the use of data by creationists who refuse to submit their work for peer review.



The fundamental breakthrough in Origin of Life (OoL) research came, of course, from the famous Miller-Urey experiment, in which it was shown that energy applied to mixtures of inorganic compounds could lead to the formation of biologically significant molecules. Despite problems that later emerged in Miller and Urey’s model, the fundamental point always remained that some conditions exist that can result in the spontaneous origin of organic molecules.



Supernatural creationists focus on a single experiment that dates back some 65 years as a failure of science. They use that experiment as an off-hand proof of their gods. That's rather silly as their vilification of science offers nothing in terms of supporting arguments for supernatural creation.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
37,529
Reaction score
4,122
Points
1,130
Pr
Actually, probability and statistics is a legitimate scientific study.
Yes, of course it is.
As is the synthesis of a large number of a specific chemical in a specific chemical reaction.
Well, show me an experiment where you do it trillions of times per second for a few hundred million years. Then get back to me. ONce there was no life, then there was life. What connects these two states is abiogenesis. By definition. You're not going to talk your way into a magical explanation for that.
stars are far more probable to come into existence than the correct chirality and isomerization of an amino acid used in proteins.
And right away.... headlong into the fallacy... "The odds of this thing being exactly like this at exactly this time and place approach zero!". It's just a tired reiteration of Zeno's paradoxes. "Every event more improbable than the last!" It's gibberish.
The law of large numbers in probability and statistics is not gibberish. Chemical reactions do involve large numbers of reactions per second. And the simple fact that formic acid was the primary chemical reaction product in Miller's experiment demonstrates the law of large numbers and the validity of probability.

The certainty that formic acid will be the primary product is proof of the law of large numbers.

It is also proof of hydrolysis (adding of water molecules) in chemical reactions where water is present (as in the famous Miller-Urey experiment.) It is one of many chemical reactions that dead end potential chemical pathways to amino acids. One such reaction:

HCN + H20 yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid.

I will post some of the other hydrolysis reactions ignored by chemical evolutionists in my next post:
I thought it was appropriate to counter creationist literature with factual data.


The components of the mixture can react among themselves to produce formaldehyde (CH2O), hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and other intermediate compounds.

CO2 → CO + [O] (atomic oxygen)

CH4 + 2[O] → CH2O + H2O

CO + NH3 → HCN + H2O

CH4 + NH3 → HCN + 3H2

The ammonia, formaldehyde and HCN so produced react by a process known as Strecker synthesis to form biomolecules including amino acids.

CH2O + HCN + NH3 → NH2-CH2-CN + H2O

NH2-CH2-CN + 2H2O → NH3 + NH2-CH2-COOH (glycine)

In addition to the above, formaldehyde and water can react by Butlerov’s reaction to produce a variety of sugars like ribose, etc.

Though later studies have indicated that the reducing atmosphere as replicated by Miller and Urey could not have prevailed on primitive Earth, still, the experiment remains to be a milestone in synthesizing the building blocks of life under abiotic conditions and not from living beings themselves.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top