1. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Sep '05 17:561 edit
    Abiogenesis: The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter.

    What are its requirements? Is it statistically possible?
  2. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    15 Sep '05 18:07
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Is it statistically possible?
    You wouldn't be sitting here asking the question if it wasn't possible.
  3. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    15 Sep '05 18:081 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    You wouldn't be sitting here asking the question if it wasn't possible.
    😀
  4. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Sep '05 18:122 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    You wouldn't be sitting here asking the question if it wasn't possible.
    Ha! You don't need me to point out the logical fallacy in your statement. Maybe a little more reason and a little less tongue in cheek would be in order before I equate you as the dj2 of the far left. And to add insult to injury you got a rec for proving nothing.
  5. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Sep '05 18:201 edit
    Originally posted by rwingett
    You wouldn't be sitting here asking the question if it wasn't possible.
    Question everything religion tells you, but take every scientific hypothesis as inerrant gospel.
  6. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    15 Sep '05 18:21
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Ha! You don't need me to point out the logical fallacy in your statement. Maybe a little more reason and a little less tongue in cheek would be in order before I equate you as the dj2 of the far left. And to add injury to insult you got a rec for proving nothing.
    Hmmm...I didn't think creationists were capable of understanding what logical fallacies were. They certainly don't seem to be able to grasp the one about circular reasoning.

    I typically find that there is an inverse relation between post length and the number of recs it receives. The forums tend to bear out the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit. Lengthy, well thought out posts tend to be overlooked in the rec department.
  7. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Sep '05 18:26
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Hmmm...I didn't think creationists were capable of understanding what logical fallacies were. They certainly don't seem to be able to grasp the one about circular reasoning.

    I typically find that there is an inverse relation between post length and the number of recs it receives. The forums tend to bear out the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit. Lengthy, well thought out posts tend to be overlooked in the rec department.
    Hmmm...I didn't think creationists were capable of understanding what logical fallacies were. They certainly don't seem to be able to grasp the one about circular reasoning.

    Lets for the sake of this thread, take it from a purely evolutionary perspective.

    I typically find that there is an inverse relation between post length and the number of recs it receives.

    Dr@. Life really is ironic.
  8. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Sep '05 18:35
    <halitose sits in corner licking his wounds>

    Can we agree on the hypothetical state of this first living cell. Most evolutionists agree that the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Current bacteria DNA has about 128 million base pairs. However, scientists claim to have found ancient fossils of bacteria which they claim to only have 500,000 base pairs. Highly unlikely, as mineralisation which forms the fossil would destroy the DNA, but I'll concede. Some evolutionists specualate further that it may have been possible for the earliest bacterium to have survived with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA.
  9. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    15 Sep '05 18:44
    Originally posted by Halitose
    <halitose sits in corner licking his wounds>

    Can we agree on the hypothetical state of this first living cell. Most evolutionists agree that the very first cell of life was a simple bacterium. Current bacteria DNA has about 128 million base pairs. However, scientists claim to have found ancient fossils of bacteria which they claim to only have 500,000 ba ...[text shortened]... ossible for the earliest bacterium to have survived with as little as 100,000 base pairs of DNA.
    Are you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated. It is concerned solely with how life evolved after it had originated. There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.
  10. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Sep '05 18:51
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Are you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated. It is concerned solely with how life evolved after it had originated. There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.
    Are you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated.

    Not at all. But that doesn't stop evolutionists from theorising how it could have happened.

    There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.

    Right, but I'm working my angle from a non-deistic perspective; random chance so to say.
  11. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    15 Sep '05 18:51
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Are you incapable of understanding that evolution has nothing to say about how life originated. It is concerned solely with how life evolved after it had originated. There are many adherants of evolution who maintain a divine spark was necessary to get the first living organism started, but once started evolution did its work. This is more of a deistic conception of god - one who created the world but then took no active part in it thereafter.
    It doesn't have to be a deistic conception of god either. Many (I guess most, although I don't have numbers) Christians adhere to evolution, but they are certainly not deists.
  12. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Sep '05 18:56
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    It doesn't have to be a deistic conception of god either. Many (I guess most, although I don't have numbers) Christians adhere to evolution, but they are certainly not deists.
    Sure. But as I said above (maybe not so clearly), I want to investigate if it is statistically possible to happen by random chance.
  13. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    15 Sep '05 19:03
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Sure. But as I said above (maybe not so clearly), I want to investigate if it is statistically possible to happen by random chance.
    What exactly do you mean by "statistically possible"? That doesn't make any sense to me. I seem to remember this came up in another thread, but I don't remember where it was.
  14. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    15 Sep '05 19:16
    Originally posted by Nordlys
    What exactly do you mean by "statistically possible"? That doesn't make any sense to me. I seem to remember this came up in another thread, but I don't remember where it was.
    Take all the requirement for a fuctioning single-celled organism, take random chance and add the two together and see if it is statistically possible. DNA is a good start as it is the molecule which regulates the functionality of a cell.
  15. The sky
    Joined
    05 Apr '05
    Moves
    10385
    15 Sep '05 19:22
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Take all the requirement for a fuctioning single-celled organism, take random chance and add the two together and see if it is statistically possible. DNA is a good start as it is the molecule which regulates the functionality of a cell.
    I repeat: What exactly do you mean by "statistically possible"?
Back to Top