Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How? I need to remind you that you are scientifically illiterate. You won't be able to support your claim because you don't understand the Second Law.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Information does not come from natural processes but an Intelligent Creator, God.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a claim. It is worthless on its own. Right now it can be refuted with just a hand wave:
There you go. You have been refuted until you do better.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The second law is what would destroy information. It would dilute the concentration of amino acids in liquid, or in the atmosphere or in a vacuum.
Both of these would be greater entropy.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why would it? How would it.
It is rather clear that you do not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics at all either. But support what looks to be a very mistaken posts and I could easily change my mind.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Dilution increases entropy, so the 2nd law shows systems move toward dilution. That is why there could not have been been a high enough concentration of amino acids to produce a first living creature.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, but where do you get the water for your dilution? Your understanding of chemistry is as bad as any other science. If the production of the needed chemicals was a one time event you might have a valid argument, but no one is saying that. For example we know from modern black smokers that they make amino acids naturally when they erupt, and they can erupt for a very long time.
Also you have no clue as to how high the concentration needed to be. The experts in the field, those that have studied these problems and have had to submit them for peer review (another concept that you demonstrated that you do not understand) did not see a problem with them, nor did the skeptics that reviewed their work.
Try again. Use real papers. Use real figures. Show your math and justify it.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Dilution in an liquid is greater entropy and the 2nd law guarantees greater dilution of any concentration of amino acids in any liquid.
The same holds for the atmosphere and in the vacuum of space,.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It does not guarantee instant dilution. Sorry, but you have no clue. The salinity of sea water varies a bit across the globe because there is no such thing as instant dilution. Reality tells you that you do not understand the laws of thermodynamics.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
So next to being utterly ignorant on biology, you are also ignorant on physics.
This is so surprising.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The rate of dilution is small for small concentration differences. And the rate is high for large difference. Any amino acid concentration to form a first living creature would have been very high. So it would have diluted quickly. You seem to not understand simple differential equations which is just one of the creationist, Isaac Newton invented.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why would they have to be very high? I do not think that you understand the procedures necessary at all. You are making strawman arguments instead of finding out what those doing the research propose.
And sorry, but technically Newton was not a creationist. You do not know the history of that term.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
They have to be in a space as small as a cell and with about 100,000 amino acids and frankly probably over 1 million with millions of other atoms of specific elements arranges in an exact position in 3D space correctly bonded. That is a very high concentration.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You would need to justify all of these claims. Let me break this down for you so that you can see your errors:
"They have to be in a space as small as a cell "
You seem to be assuming that the earliest of cells would have been as small as the most modern cells. Why are you assuming that? Why couldn't they have been much larger? Much much larger?
" and with about 100,000 amino acids "
Why assume this large of amino acids? From what I have read it would take less. Far, far less. Here is a clue, if you are comparing the original life to modern life that is a gross error. The existing life has had over 3.7 billon years of evolution behind it. It is going to get more than just slightly more complex over that time. And you have conceded the billions of years by moving the goalposts to abiogenesis. You need to face the consequences of your own actions.
" 1 million with millions of other atoms of specific elements arranges in an exact position in 3D space correctly bonded. "
Okay, now we know that you have no clue. You are referring to modern life. Modern life has to compete with billions or actually trillions of other cells. Guess what did not exist at the time of abiogenesis? I will tell you. There was no competition between cells. The source of your errors is rather obvious. You are looking at what it takes for modern life to exist rather than what it would take for a cell to be able to reproduce in an environment without any competition.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Over 1.3 million base pairs for the smallest free-living creature. So 100,000 is overly generous.
Pick any number you want. It will still be impossible.
Pick a number, any number.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is not. In fact it is extremely unlikely. All that was needed was a strand of self replicating RNA. Do you have any idea how long such a strand needs to be? I do.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
a strand of self replicating RNA will not survive.
And where did that come from?
And how many base pairs?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why not? You probably have not been following the conversation.
Where does what come from?
About 200, though possible even less than 150.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Odds against just 150, 39^150 to 1 Or 10^240 to 1.
Never happened. And that 150 aminos will never amount to anything. It will “die”. It would not be able to leave any offspring.