Statistical Impossibilities of Evolution

[Pah]

In all this "statistical probability" of life forming from a random chemical reaction in the primordial soup, I've just gotta ask.... where did the soup come from?

From the Master Chef???? Would that be what you think?

 

[Snowbear]

From the Master Chef???? Would that be what you think?

Yep

 

[michel]

From the Master Chef???? Would that be what you think?

Yeah, I've heard of him, let's see if I can remember his name......that's it ! : God.

 

[Rex]

This thread is too smart for me. *bows out! lol

 

[Ceridwen018]

In all this "statistical probability" of life forming from a random chemical reaction in the primordial soup, I've just gotta ask.... where did the soup come from?

Maybe it was always there. Maybe not.

 

[Valjean]

I'd like to add that several bacterial strains are resistant to Phenol, including Staphalococcus, Bacillus and Proteus have been proven resistant in lab tests.

Extremeophiles live under all sorts of conditions that are 'not very conducive to life' including high acidic, high alkaline, high temperature, high pressure, and oxygen-less environments.
The presence of Phenol does not preclude the presence of life.

http://www.pjbot.org/pjbot/abstracts/36(2)/415.htm
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=201419
http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/ideas/antibiotic_resistance/mrsa/school_athletic_athletes.asp

wa:do

Life can learn to deal with all sorts of "toxic" chemicals. Eg: Originally Earth's atmosphere contained little of the caustic, highly reactive element oxygen. Hence, the oldest bacteria are anaerobic. Oxygen kills them.

As atmospheric levels soared, however -- largely due to bacterial "waste products" -- there was a cataclysmic die-off.

A few species, however, were oxygen resistant, and thrived. Today, most life forms have not only adapted to being bathed in oxygen 24/7, but have actually learned to incorporate it into their metabolism. They (we) would die without it.

Anaerobes still hang on in oxygen-poor niches.

 

[Snowbear]

Maybe it was always there. Maybe not.

So do you think the soup spontaneously generated from nothingness... Without any help from a Creator?

 

[Pah]

So do you think the soup spontaneously generated from nothingness... Without any help from a Creator?

It followed from the Big Bang which was not "from nothingness"

 

[Snowbear]

It followed from the Big Bang which was not "from nothingness"

So the Big Bang was the spontaneous event? Even with that theory, wasn't there already matter to be banged into life forms? If not Created, where did the atoms and molecules that formed matter, cosmic dust into living creatures and tissues come from?

 

[Pah]

So the Big Bang was the spontaneous event? Even with that theory, wasn't there already matter to be banged into life forms? If not Created, where did the atoms and molecules that formed matter, cosmic dust into living creatures and tissues come from?

No matter - only strings prior to the Big Bang. Before that? - who knows but science will eventually have an answer for that as well.

Now, while science is still in the wings for that answer, would you want to say God is a string maker? - or God is the strings? - or God is a membrane of strings?

 

[linwood]

Now, while science is still in the wings for that answer, would you want to say God is a string maker? - or God is the strings? - or God is a membrane of strings?

He might as well be considering strings are theorized to be infinately thin and one dimensional.

A concept that cannot be verified just like God.

Even science seems to need some type of impossible "God"/being/thing to believe in any creation.

It`s kinda funny.

 

[Pah]

He might as well be considering strings are theorized to be infinately thin and one dimensional.

A concept that cannot be verified just like God.

Even science seems to need some type of impossible "God"/being/thing to believe in any creation.

It`s kinda funny.

Actually, in 1 dimension, there is no thickness to be considered. It is the same as a geometry line - no width but there is length. A point, of course, has zero dimensions. I have far more intuitive confidence in a string than a point infinetly dense.

I looked for the thread that taked about string theory and I would like to post there - if you would be so kind. My latest purchase is a book "the elegant universe - superstrings, hidden dimension, and the quest for the ultimate theory", by Brian Greene, another, beside Michio Kaku, instrumental in the devoping theory. I find the two a challange but I'm developing an understanding. Many of the questions asked, contra-string theory, are answered in understandable language by Greene. I guess it helps to have a focus while reading.

 

[linwood]

Actually, in 1 dimension, there is no thickness to be considered. It is the same as a geometry line - no width but there is length. A point, of course, has zero dimensions. I have far more intuitive confidence in a string than a point infinetly dense.

Yes, thus the "infinite density but that term night come from a source that isn`t truly correct as it was essentially my "String Theory for Dummies" site I read it at.

I looked for the thread that taked about string theory and I would like to post there - if you would be so kind.

Here you go.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9327

My latest purchase is a book "the elegant universe - superstrings, hidden dimension, and the quest for the ultimate theory", by Brian Greene, another, beside Michio Kaku, instrumental in the devoping theory. I find the two a challange but I'm developing an understanding. Many of the questions asked, contra-string theory, are answered in understandable language by Greene. I guess it helps to have a focus while reading.

It is a difficult subject for me to maintain focus on as well.
If Greene writes in understandable terminology i`ll definately add the book to my list.

 

[Ceridwen018]

So do you think the soup spontaneously generated from nothingness... Without any help from a Creator?

Snowbear, you're not understanding. It can't be 'generated' from anything if it was always there.

 

[Snowbear]

Snowbear, you're not understanding. It can't be 'generated' from anything if it was always there.

You're right about the not understanding..... One of the laws of physics says you can't make something from nothing. Where my understanding falls short is in trying to grasp the concept of "it" always being there. When did "always" start? What was before the always? Where was the it that was always there before there was an always?

 

[Snowbear]

No matter - only strings prior to the Big Bang. Before that? - who knows but science will eventually have an answer for that as well.

Now, while science is still in the wings for that answer, would you want to say God is a string maker? - or God is the strings? - or God is a membrane of strings?

As far as science having the answer, all science has to this point are theories. Theories attempt to explain, but without being able to prove them they are still just theories, not definitive answers.

Hmmm.... I would have to say God is the strings... and the string maker.... and the string changer/shaper....

 

[linwood]

You're right about the not understanding..... One of the laws of physics says you can't make something from nothing. Where my understanding falls short is in trying to grasp the concept of "it" always being there. When did "always" start? What was before the always? Where was the it that was always there before there was an always?

I find it hard to comprehending just the opposite.

To my mind it`s perfectly clear that "it" has always been there and "always" has always been it didn`t start, it doesn`t end.

 

[Pah]

As far as science having the answer, all science has to this point are theories. Theories attempt to explain, but without being able to prove them they are still just theories, not definitive answers.

Hmmm.... I would have to say God is the strings... and the string maker.... and the string changer/shaper....

Don't belittle theories. They are based on observable, repeatable facts.

Stirngs are such little things - close to a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter (10 to the minus 33 power of a centimenter). Not much for a creator to do. From that point on, science has (or is finding) the answers.

I find it quite amusing that some Christians will appropiate the latest science as an act of God. Just where in your bible is support for strings. It certainly isn't in the creation stories which as used to meld the Big Bang with God. Stirngs certainly are not the Word that proceeded everything as told in the New Testament And is is certain that the creative God is not in the facts of evolution. Not from the Bible, those aren't

 

[Valjean]

People keep using words like "before", "time", "create" and "generated." These terms presuppose that the phenomenon of time actually exists as we perceive it.

Consider time as a mathematical dimension, like length or depth, but perceived by us in a non-linear, non-spacial way. The inability of our brains to conceive time as a spacial dimension doesn't mean it actually is fundamentally different from the other three.

If we weren't perceptually handicapped we could see that there is no before or after, no beginning, no then, the debate on origins becomes metaphysically moot. And if you're talking String theory, you're talking metaphysics &/or mathematics.

 

[Snowbear]

Don't belittle theories. They are based on observable, repeatable facts.

I'm not belittling, just pointing out that a thory is not scientific proof of something, but an attempt to explain it.
American Heritage Dictionary:
Theory:

1. A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
2. Abstract reasoning; speculation.

Stirngs are such little things - close to a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter (10 to the minus 33 power of a centimenter). Not much for a creator to do.

OK - they're little. But if not Created, how did they get there? Did they just "pop" into existance?

I find it quite amusing that some Christians will appropiate the latest science as an act of God.

Yeah - probably the same Christians who believe God is in control, thus appropriate everything as an act of God, including human discoveries into the workings of nature

BTW - not that it really matters, but I am posting as one who is not completely oblivious of the sciences ~ My college edumacation was in the Biological sciences.