Do Athiests Rely on Faith?

[Alethe]

Atheists claim that life was created naturally and spontaneously from tiny chemicals into comparatively large, complex organisms (cells). They use "could have" a lot in theories, but when it's further explored, those theories run into scientific laws that say it "could not have". It is a massive jump from those tiny chemicals to cells and actually defies natural laws. Some of these laws include, but are not limited to:

• *Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.
  *Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).
  *Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.
  *Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).
  *Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.
  *Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).

You see, I like science. I can trust science because it performs in consistent ways. The natural laws above actually inhibit or prevent life from forming.

Atheists have to believe that to create life abiogenetically that these natural laws broke down and didn't work, that science didn't work. Since they have to believe that science doesn't work all the time, there must be some supernatural law that supersedes known scientific law.

That sounds a lot like faith. Why do atheists rely on faith? And what is it in the supernatural that they actually have faith in?

[H.sapiens]

Althe, please allow this excursion into the realm of appeals to authority since it is an appeal to your kind of authority rather than mine.

The website of Creation Ministries International starts off with a warning under the heading, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use."

"It is notable that some skeptics criticise creationists when they retract doubtful arguments, but these are also the same people who accuse creationists of being unwilling to change their minds!"

"Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth� (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments."

There is a long list of arguments specifically identified as doubful that include these that I have seen on forums (maybe some even here):

If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes today?

Archaeopteryx is a fraud,

There are no beneficial mutations.

No new species have been produced.

Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species.

Natural selection as tautology.

Evolution is just a theory.

There are no transitional forms.

Plate tectonics is fallacious.

Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

The last doubtful argument is interesting since it heralds a major change in direction. For many years creationists argued against any sort of evolution. Under the weight of crushing evidence they gave up on their absolute claim and grabbed hold of the discussion that was then going on in the scientific community concerning rates of evolution, which included the ideas of micro and macro evolution. The creationists perverted the meaning and discussion of both the species concept and the micro/macro evolution.

But now we see a new attempt to obfuscate using semantics amalgamated with a misrepresentation of thermodynamics and what is implied to be "good old common sense," rather than clarification via the scientific merits.

Let's look at what the creationists are doing, here is the entire statement from the CMI website:

<“Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.� These terms, which focus on ‘small’ v. ‘large’ changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information (e.g., specifications for manufacturing nerves, muscle, bone, etc.), but all we observe is sorting and, overwhelmingly, loss of information. We are hard-pressed to find examples of even ‘micro’ increases in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off. Importantly, the term microevolution will be seen by many as just a ‘little bit’ of the process that they think turned bacteria to people. In other words, it implies that simply given enough time (millions of years), such ‘micro’ changes will accumulate to amount to ‘macro’ changes. But this is not so; see The evolution train’s a-comin’: (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction). Interestingly, even high profile evolutionists (e.g. Mayr, Ayala) disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution.>

Now ... that's rather semantically empty except for the claim that Ernst Mayer and Francisco Ayala (both or whom I had pleasure of taking classes from), "... disagree with the idea that the observed small changes in living things are sufficient to account for the grand scheme of microbes-to-mankind evolution." I know of no such statement by either, so I would assume this is just another creationist quote mining expedition.

But they reference a website: "The evolution train’s a-comin’: (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction)". Which details their thinking:

<Evolutionists teach that one-celled organisms (e.g. protozoa) have given rise to pelicans, pomegranates, people and ponies. In each case, the DNA ‘recipe’ has had to undergo a massive net increase of information during the alleged millions of years. A one-celled organism does not have the instructions for how to manufacture eyes, ears, blood, skin, hooves, brains, etc. which ponies need. So for protozoa to have given rise to ponies, there would have to be some mechanism that gives rise to new information.

Evolutionists hail natural selection as if it were a creative goddess, but the reality (which they invariably concede when pressed) is that selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. To have a way to add information, the ‘only game in town’ for evolution’s true believers is genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection). However, the problem is that if mutations were capable of adding the information required, we should see hundreds of examples all around us, considering that there are many thousands of mutations happening continually. But whenever we study mutations, they invariably turn out to have lost or degraded the information. This is so even in those rare instances when the mutational defect gives a survival advantage—e.g. the loss of wings on beetles on windy islands.

As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving.>

Let us here note that protozoa went out of use a long time ago, and (in any case) never would have contained the ancestral form for pelicans, pomegranates, people and ponies, being three duterostomes and a plant and only serving to provide a fractured alliteration.

CMI is incorrect in their claim that, "selection on its own always gets rid of information, never the opposite. To have a way to add information, the ‘only game in town’ for evolution’s true believers is genetic copying mistakes or accidents, i.e. random mutations (which can then be ‘filtered’ by selection)." Selection neither gets rid of information nor adds information, it just decides what information will be passed down to future generations. That may involve a deletion or an addition or both. We do see "hundreds of examples all around us," every genetic disease is just is such an example, every human feature and trait is such a feature, blue eyes are just such a feature and all blue-eyed people can be traced back to one ancestor who lived about 10,000 years ago near the Black Sea, I suppose we should tell Cameron Diaz that her eyes are just an example of lost or degraded information.

The increase of information requires two things, not just mutations to provide the new information, but also new places where that information will be written. Polyploidy and chromosome fusion are two ways that new pages in the book of life are created, ready to be written on by mutation and natural selection.

CMI's thesis that, "As creatures diversify, gene pools become increasingly thinned out. The more organisms adapt to their surroundings by selection, i.e. the more specialized they become, the smaller the fraction they carry of the original storehouse of created information for their kind. Thus, there is less information available on which natural selection can act in the future to ‘readapt’ the population should circumstances change. Less flexible, less adaptable populations are obviously heading closer to extinction, not evolving." is complete and utter hogwash, there is no scientific support for the baseless claim, a claim that is really trying to say that a cat and a dog would be less fit because their common ancestor sent all the dog genes north and all the cat genes south thus thinning out both gene pools (implied: by half). The reality is that cats and dogs are 82% identical (at least genetically). Most dogs have 78 chromosomes with 2.5 billion base pairs and most cats have 38 with 2.7 billion base pairs.

C.M.I. (and you for that matter) should take their (CMI's) own advice:

1. "It is notable that some skeptics criticise creationists when they retract doubtful arguments, but these are also the same people who accuse creationists of being unwilling to change their minds!"

2. "Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth� (John 14:6)! Since there is so much good evidence for creation, there is no need to use any of the ‘doubtful’ arguments."

Creditable arguments can be found with just a few clicks, with no intellectual heavy lifting required.

[Alethe]

[Replying to post 5 by Jashwell]

It would be nice for you to show this.

Sure, I'll actually give you the formulas and you can do it yourself. The number of amino acids required for the average protein is 300. (At least one protein in the Minimal Genome Project is 580 amino acids long.) There are 20 amino acids that are used in "life". The formula for the number of permutations for a single average protein is 20^300 (or 20^580 for longer).

This formula isn't comletely accurate because there are a number of proteins that can be substituted. An evolutionist would say a more accurate number would be closer to 12-13 proteins. Given that scientists estimate (this is theory) that the absolute minimum genome that can "sustain life" (losing several functions such as genetic repair, etc) is 382 genes. Combine those together and the formula for a cell is 12^300^382.

Creationists counter and say that those numbers are far too small and show that their minimum genome failed and they had to synthesis something larger (Mycoplasma capricolum) with 985 genes to get it to work. Even using evolutionists numbers, it's still impossibly massive. You can run the calculations here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=12%5E300%5E382

100 years of observation of small laboratories (that don't even simulate comets) does not constitute half a billion years of planetary development.

They are not "components required for life", they are "components required for modern life". We would expect to see early life use much fewer of these chemicals, and we know life itself can play a roll in producing them.

It may not even be the case that the majority of modern 'components of life' were in early life.

"Modern life" is a red herring and a fallacy and I'll explain why. First, the building blocks I listed are still required for "early life", theoretically just fewer of them. Second, and more important, it doesn't matter if "early life" were to use fewer of these chemicals, the "modern life" exists now and still had to be created. The problem is, no scenario can create the "modern life" components, even from "early life" models.

There are multiple ways in which chirality can be selected.
One example is radiation, which can preferentially destroy chiral structures.

Not to mention that while modern life uses many chiral molecules, initial life may not have. (and we know life can produce chiral molecules later on)

The radiation that can "preferentially destroy chiral structures" doesn't exist in the natural world. I'm not questioning the fact that man can artificially separate enantiomers, but it doesn't work in any pre-biotic earth model to occur spontaneously. The reason chirality is important is imagine a 3-D puzzle that only turned to the left. If you introduce a "right-handed" piece it would prevent the puzzle from forming. This is same with amino acids. The protiens they create are 3-D puzzles. An anti-chiral amino acid still bonds, but makes it useless.

Long chains necessary for modern life does not constitute long chains necessary for initial life. Especially DNA and RNA, which likely may not even

have existed at the time.

What are short chains supposed to do? They are good at sitting there not doing anything, that's all they are good for.

The early atmosphere is known to have been low in o2 and ozone.
In fact, the best explanation for why we have so much oxygen is because of early (and current) life.

As for "life would burn up without it", this simply isn't true. Negative effects on modern life (esp the genome) and complete unviability for early life are two different things.

Dangerous UV radiation from our sun makes it "completely unviable for early life" as well. UV radiation alters chemical bonds. That's why it's harmful to life. But altering chemical bonds is just as harmful to non-life.

I don't see why proteins would have needed to exist in early life.

Proteins exist, they had to be created somewhere, some time, some how. However, if you are referring to early life consisted of "self-replicating molecules". WTF is that? You see, "self-replicating" is "spinning wheels". What good is it to create itself over and over other than using up the already limited materials. AND, if it were self-replicating, there should be trillions and trillions of these molecules in the fossil record (it's not there).

I don't need to explain abiogenesis to not believe in God, you need to explain why we should believe in God.
None of these problems would demand a God if they were sound (and they aren't).

There is absolutely no other explanation for life. Unless you subscribe to the fact that the physical and natural laws required for chemistry and biology are not constant. What good then are laws if they don't work?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 5 by Jashwell]

It would be nice for you to show this.

Sure, I'll actually give you the formulas and you can do it yourself. The number of amino acids required for the average protein is 300. (At least one protein in the Minimal Genome Project is 580 amino acids long.) There are 20 amino acids that are used in "life". The formula for the number of permutations for a single average protein is 20^300 (or 20^580 for longer).

The Minimal Genome Project has nothing what-so-ever to do with the origin of life.

Wiki: "The concept of minimal genome assumes that genomes can be reduced to a bare minimum, given that they contain many non-essential genes of limited or situational importance to the organism. Therefore, if a collection of all the essential genes were put together, a minimum genome could be created artificially in a stable environment. By adding more genes, the creation of an organism of desired properties is possible. The concept of minimal genome arose from the observations that many genes do not appear to be necessary for survival.[1][2] In order to create a new organism a scientist must determine the minimal set of genes required for metabolism and replication. This can be achieved by experimental and computational analysis of the biochemical pathways needed to carry out basic metabolism and reproduction.[3] "

That's radically different from establishing what was required at the first step toward life, or the second step, or even the hundredth step. Conditions were radically different. You are assuming that the minimum requirement for today's "life as we know it" is the same, an assumption that I can assure you is completely mistaken.

This formula isn't comletely accurate because there are a number of proteins that can be substituted. An evolutionist would say a more accurate number would be closer to 12-13 proteins. Given that scientists estimate (this is theory) that the absolute minimum genome that can "sustain life" (losing several functions such as genetic repair, etc) is 382 genes. Combine those together and the formula for a cell is 12^300^382.

Creationists counter and say that those numbers are far too small and show that their minimum genome failed and they had to synthesis something larger (Mycoplasma capricolum) with 985 genes to get it to work. Even using evolutionists numbers, it's still impossibly massive. You can run the calculations here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=12%5E300%5E382

You are making additional ssumptions that are incorrect. You are assuming that early proteins were exactly the same size as modern proteins, at least for the purpose of your calculation. I know of no reputable biologist who would suggest that - poof -> life started with exactly the same long proteins that it took billions of years to evolve.

100 years of observation of small laboratories (that don't even simulate comets) does not constitute half a billion years of planetary development.

They are not "components required for life", they are "components required for modern life". We would expect to see early life use much fewer of these chemicals, and we know life itself can play a roll in producing them.

It may not even be the case that the majority of modern 'components of life' were in early life.

"Modern life" is a red herring and a fallacy and I'll explain why. First, the building blocks I listed are still required for "early life", theoretically just fewer of them. Second, and more important, it doesn't matter if "early life" were to use fewer of these chemicals, the "modern life" exists now and still had to be created. The problem is, no scenario can create the "modern life" components, even from "early life" models.

There are multiple ways in which chirality can be selected.
One example is radiation, which can preferentially destroy chiral structures.

Not to mention that while modern life uses many chiral molecules, initial life may not have. (and we know life can produce chiral molecules later on)

The radiation that can "preferentially destroy chiral structures" doesn't exist in the natural world. I'm not questioning the fact that man can artificially separate enantiomers, but it doesn't work in any pre-biotic earth model to occur spontaneously. The reason chirality is important is imagine a 3-D puzzle that only turned to the left. If you introduce a "right-handed" piece it would prevent the puzzle from forming. This is same with amino acids. The protiens they create are 3-D puzzles. An anti-chiral amino acid still bonds, but makes it useless.

Long chains necessary for modern life does not constitute long chains necessary for initial life. Especially DNA and RNA, which likely may not even

have existed at the time.

What are short chains supposed to do? They are good at sitting there not doing anything, that's all they are good for.

The early atmosphere is known to have been low in o2 and ozone.
In fact, the best explanation for why we have so much oxygen is because of early (and current) life.

As for "life would burn up without it", this simply isn't true. Negative effects on modern life (esp the genome) and complete unviability for early life are two different things.

Dangerous UV radiation from our sun makes it "completely unviable for early life" as well. UV radiation alters chemical bonds. That's why it's harmful to life. But altering chemical bonds is just as harmful to non-life.

I don't see why proteins would have needed to exist in early life.

Proteins exist, they had to be created somewhere, some time, some how. However, if you are referring to early life consisted of "self-replicating molecules". WTF is that? You see, "self-replicating" is "spinning wheels". What good is it to create itself over and over other than using up the already limited materials. AND, if it were self-replicating, there should be trillions and trillions of these molecules in the fossil record (it's not there).

I don't need to explain abiogenesis to not believe in God, you need to explain why we should believe in God.
None of these problems would demand a God if they were sound (and they aren't).

There is absolutely no other explanation for life. Unless you subscribe to the fact that the physical and natural laws required for chemistry and biology are not constant. What good then are laws if they don't work?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 5 by Jashwell]

It would be nice for you to show this.

Sure, I'll actually give you the formulas and you can do it yourself. The number of amino acids required for the average protein is 300. (At least one protein in the Minimal Genome Project is 580 amino acids long.) There are 20 amino acids that are used in "life". The formula for the number of permutations for a single average protein is 20^300 (or 20^580 for longer).

The Minimal Genome Project has nothing what-so-ever to do with the origin of life.

Wiki: "The concept of minimal genome assumes that genomes can be reduced to a bare minimum, given that they contain many non-essential genes of limited or situational importance to the organism. Therefore, if a collection of all the essential genes were put together, a minimum genome could be created artificially in a stable environment. By adding more genes, the creation of an organism of desired properties is possible. The concept of minimal genome arose from the observations that many genes do not appear to be necessary for survival.[1][2] In order to create a new organism a scientist must determine the minimal set of genes required for metabolism and replication. This can be achieved by experimental and computational analysis of the biochemical pathways needed to carry out basic metabolism and reproduction.[3] "

That's radically different from establishing what was required at the first step toward life, or the second step, or even the hundredth step. Conditions were radically different. You are assuming that the minimum requirement for today's "life as we know it" is the same, an assumption that I can assure you is completely mistaken.

This formula isn't comletely accurate because there are a number of proteins that can be substituted. An evolutionist would say a more accurate number would be closer to 12-13 proteins. Given that scientists estimate (this is theory) that the absolute minimum genome that can "sustain life" (losing several functions such as genetic repair, etc) is 382 genes. Combine those together and the formula for a cell is 12^300^382.

Creationists counter and say that those numbers are far too small and show that their minimum genome failed and they had to synthesis something larger (Mycoplasma capricolum) with 985 genes to get it to work. Even using evolutionists numbers, it's still impossibly massive. You can run the calculations here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=12%5E300%5E382

You are making additional ssumptions that are incorrect. You are assuming that early proteins were exactly the same size as modern proteins, at least for the purpose of your calculation. I know of no reputable biologist who would suggest that - poof -> life started with exactly the same long proteins that it took billions of years to evolve.

100 years of observation of small laboratories (that don't even simulate comets) does not constitute half a billion years of planetary development.

They are not "components required for life", they are "components required for modern life". We would expect to see early life use much fewer of these chemicals, and we know life itself can play a roll in producing them.

It may not even be the case that the majority of modern 'components of life' were in early life.

"Modern life" is a red herring and a fallacy and I'll explain why. First, the building blocks I listed are still required for "early life", theoretically just fewer of them. Second, and more important, it doesn't matter if "early life" were to use fewer of these chemicals, the "modern life" exists now and still had to be created. The problem is, no scenario can create the "modern life" components, even from "early life" models.

Again, you are just wrong, on multiple counts. The building blocks you listed would, in fact, serve ... but are not "required." Yes "modern life" had to be created, but once the train is rolling the odds shift dramatically, look to: "Weasel Experiment."

There are multiple ways in which chirality can be selected.
One example is radiation, which can preferentially destroy chiral structures.

Not to mention that while modern life uses many chiral molecules, initial life may not have. (and we know life can produce chiral molecules later on)

The radiation that can "preferentially destroy chiral structures" doesn't exist in the natural world. I'm not questioning the fact that man can artificially separate enantiomers, but it doesn't work in any pre-biotic earth model to occur spontaneously. The reason chirality is important is imagine a 3-D puzzle that only turned to the left. If you introduce a "right-handed" piece it would prevent the puzzle from forming. This is same with amino acids. The protiens they create are 3-D puzzles. An anti-chiral amino acid still bonds, but makes it useless.

Long chains necessary for modern life does not constitute long chains necessary for initial life. Especially DNA and RNA, which likely may not even

have existed at the time.

What are short chains supposed to do? They are good at sitting there not doing anything, that's all they are good for.

The early atmosphere is known to have been low in o2 and ozone.
In fact, the best explanation for why we have so much oxygen is because of early (and current) life.

As for "life would burn up without it", this simply isn't true. Negative effects on modern life (esp the genome) and complete unviability for early life are two different things.

Dangerous UV radiation from our sun makes it "completely unviable for early life" as well. UV radiation alters chemical bonds. That's why it's harmful to life. But altering chemical bonds is just as harmful to non-life.

I don't see why proteins would have needed to exist in early life.

Proteins exist, they had to be created somewhere, some time, some how. However, if you are referring to early life consisted of "self-replicating molecules". WTF is that? You see, "self-replicating" is "spinning wheels". What good is it to create itself over and over other than using up the already limited materials. AND, if it were self-replicating, there should be trillions and trillions of these molecules in the fossil record (it's not there).

I don't need to explain abiogenesis to not believe in God, you need to explain why we should believe in God.
None of these problems would demand a God if they were sound (and they aren't).

There is absolutely no other explanation for life. Unless you subscribe to the fact that the physical and natural laws required for chemistry and biology are not constant. What good then are laws if they don't work?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 5 by Jashwell]

It would be nice for you to show this.

Sure, I'll actually give you the formulas and you can do it yourself. The number of amino acids required for the average protein is 300. (At least one protein in the Minimal Genome Project is 580 amino acids long.) There are 20 amino acids that are used in "life". The formula for the number of permutations for a single average protein is 20^300 (or 20^580 for longer).

The Minimal Genome Project has nothing what-so-ever to do with the origin of life.

Wiki: "The concept of minimal genome assumes that genomes can be reduced to a bare minimum, given that they contain many non-essential genes of limited or situational importance to the organism. Therefore, if a collection of all the essential genes were put together, a minimum genome could be created artificially in a stable environment. By adding more genes, the creation of an organism of desired properties is possible. The concept of minimal genome arose from the observations that many genes do not appear to be necessary for survival.[1][2] In order to create a new organism a scientist must determine the minimal set of genes required for metabolism and replication. This can be achieved by experimental and computational analysis of the biochemical pathways needed to carry out basic metabolism and reproduction.[3] "

That's radically different from establishing what was required at the first step toward life, or the second step, or even the hundredth step. Conditions were radically different. You are assuming that the minimum requirement for today's "life as we know it" is the same, an assumption that I can assure you is completely mistaken.

This formula isn't comletely accurate because there are a number of proteins that can be substituted. An evolutionist would say a more accurate number would be closer to 12-13 proteins. Given that scientists estimate (this is theory) that the absolute minimum genome that can "sustain life" (losing several functions such as genetic repair, etc) is 382 genes. Combine those together and the formula for a cell is 12^300^382.

Creationists counter and say that those numbers are far too small and show that their minimum genome failed and they had to synthesis something larger (Mycoplasma capricolum) with 985 genes to get it to work. Even using evolutionists numbers, it's still impossibly massive. You can run the calculations here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=12%5E300%5E382

You are making additional ssumptions that are incorrect. You are assuming that early proteins were exactly the same size as modern proteins, at least for the purpose of your calculation. I know of no reputable biologist who would suggest that - poof -> life started with exactly the same long proteins that it took billions of years to evolve.

100 years of observation of small laboratories (that don't even simulate comets) does not constitute half a billion years of planetary development.

They are not "components required for life", they are "components required for modern life". We would expect to see early life use much fewer of these chemicals, and we know life itself can play a roll in producing them.

It may not even be the case that the majority of modern 'components of life' were in early life.

"Modern life" is a red herring and a fallacy and I'll explain why. First, the building blocks I listed are still required for "early life", theoretically just fewer of them. Second, and more important, it doesn't matter if "early life" were to use fewer of these chemicals, the "modern life" exists now and still had to be created. The problem is, no scenario can create the "modern life" components, even from "early life" models.

Again, you are just wrong, on multiple counts. The building blocks you listed would, in fact, serve ... but are not "required." Yes "modern life" had to be created, but once the train is rolling the odds shift dramatically, look up: "Weasel Experiment."

There are multiple ways in which chirality can be selected.
One example is radiation, which can preferentially destroy chiral structures.

Not to mention that while modern life uses many chiral molecules, initial life may not have. (and we know life can produce chiral molecules later on)

The radiation that can "preferentially destroy chiral structures" doesn't exist in the natural world. I'm not questioning the fact that man can artificially separate enantiomers, but it doesn't work in any pre-biotic earth model to occur spontaneously. The reason chirality is important is imagine a 3-D puzzle that only turned to the left. If you introduce a "right-handed" piece it would prevent the puzzle from forming. This is same with amino acids. The protiens they create are 3-D puzzles. An anti-chiral amino acid still bonds, but makes it useless.

I already dealt with the chirality question, allow me to refresh your memory:

Wiki: "Once established, chirality would be selected for.[109] A small enantiomeric excess can be amplified into a large one by asymmetric autocatalysis, such as in the Soai reaction.[110] In asymmetric autocatalysis, the catalyst is a chiral molecule, which means that a chiral molecule is catalysing its own production. An initial enantiomeric excess, such as can be produced by polarized light, then allows the more abundant enantiomer to outcompete the other.[111]

Clark has suggested that homochirality may have started in outer space, as the studies of the amino acids on the Murchison meteorite showed L-alanine to be more than twice as frequent as its D form, and L-glutamic acid was more than three times prevalent than its D counterpart. Various chiral crystal surfaces can also act as sites for possible concentration and assembly of chiral monomer units into macromolecules.[112] Compounds found on meteorites suggest that the chirality of life derives from abiogenic synthesis, since amino acids from meteorites show a left-handed bias, whereas sugars show a predominantly right-handed bias, the same as found in living organisms.[113]"

Long chains necessary for modern life does not constitute long chains necessary for initial life. Especially DNA and RNA, which likely may not even

have existed at the time.

What are short chains supposed to do? They are good at sitting there not doing anything, that's all they are good for.

They are good being the precursors to today's "life as we know it."

The early atmosphere is known to have been low in o2 and ozone.
In fact, the best explanation for why we have so much oxygen is because of early (and current) life.

As for "life would burn up without it", this simply isn't true. Negative effects on modern life (esp the genome) and complete unviability for early life are two different things.

Dangerous UV radiation from our sun makes it "completely unviable for early life" as well. UV radiation alters chemical bonds. That's why it's harmful to life. But altering chemical bonds is just as harmful to non-life.

If life started in the thermal vents of the deep sea, then U/V from our Sun would be irrelevant.

I don't see why proteins would have needed to exist in early life.

I don't either.

Proteins exist, they had to be created somewhere, some time, some how. However, if you are referring to early life consisted of "self-replicating molecules". WTF is that?

Take a class, read a book, please.

You see, "self-replicating" is "spinning wheels". What good is it to create itself over and over other than using up the already limited materials. AND, if it were self-replicating, there should be trillions and trillions of these molecules in the fossil record (it's not there).

Anything that is "self-replicating" will evolve, thus not "create itself over and over. If it used up limiting materials it would die, maybe many, maybe a few, did ... but clearly one did not use up limiting materials or evolved a way to shift from a limiting material to something else, perhaps several times.

There is absolutely no other explanation for life. Unless you subscribe to the fact that the physical and natural laws required for chemistry and biology are not constant. What good then are laws if they don't work?

And we close with the classic appeal to ignorance ... how fitting

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 5 by Jashwell]

It would be nice for you to show this.

Sure, I'll actually give you the formulas and you can do it yourself. The number of amino acids required for the average protein is 300. (At least one protein in the Minimal Genome Project is 580 amino acids long.) There are 20 amino acids that are used in "life". The formula for the number of permutations for a single average protein is 20^300 (or 20^580 for longer).

This formula isn't comletely accurate because there are a number of proteins that can be substituted. An evolutionist would say a more accurate number would be closer to 12-13 proteins. Given that scientists estimate (this is theory) that the absolute minimum genome that can "sustain life" (losing several functions such as genetic repair, etc) is 382 genes. Combine those together and the formula for a cell is 12^300^382.

Creationists counter and say that those numbers are far too small and show that their minimum genome failed and they had to synthesis something larger (Mycoplasma capricolum) with 985 genes to get it to work. Even using evolutionists numbers, it's still impossibly massive. You can run the calculations here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=12%5E300%5E382

I don't see the laws of mathematics being defied, and I certainly don't see a single probability.
Of course there are indeed a lot of permutations, shame that doesn't in any way correlate to the probability of each permutation occurring. Nor would it.
Nor would the 382 genes be required for an early protocell.

100 years of observation of small laboratories (that don't even simulate comets) does not constitute half a billion years of planetary development.

They are not "components required for life", they are "components required for modern life". We would expect to see early life use much fewer of these chemicals, and we know life itself can play a roll in producing them.

It may not even be the case that the majority of modern 'components of life' were in early life.

"Modern life" is a red herring and a fallacy and I'll explain why. First, the building blocks I listed are still required for "early life", theoretically just fewer of them. Second, and more important, it doesn't matter if "early life" were to use fewer of these chemicals, the "modern life" exists now and still had to be created. The problem is, no scenario can create the "modern life" components, even from "early life" models.

No they aren't theoretically required. No initial life model I'm aware of starts off with a genome.
Yes, scenarios can create modern life from early life.

There are multiple ways in which chirality can be selected.
One example is radiation, which can preferentially destroy chiral structures.

Not to mention that while modern life uses many chiral molecules, initial life may not have. (and we know life can produce chiral molecules later on)

The radiation that can "preferentially destroy chiral structures" doesn't exist in the natural world. I'm not questioning the fact that man can artificially separate enantiomers, but it doesn't work in any pre-biotic earth model to occur spontaneously. The reason chirality is important is imagine a 3-D puzzle that only turned to the left. If you introduce a "right-handed" piece it would prevent the puzzle from forming. This is same with amino acids. The protiens they create are 3-D puzzles. An anti-chiral amino acid still bonds, but makes it useless.

The origin of this homochirality in biology is the subject of much debate.[17] Most scientists believe that Earth life's "choice" of chirality was purely random, and that if carbon-based life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, their chemistry could theoretically have opposite chirality. However, there is some suggestion that early amino acids could have formed in comet dust. In this case, circularly polarised radiation (which makes up 17% of stellar radiation) [could have caused the selective destruction of one chirality of amino acids, leading to a selection bias which ultimately resulted in all life on Earth being homochiral.[18]

Long chains necessary for modern life does not constitute long chains necessary for initial life. Especially DNA and RNA, which likely may not even

have existed at the time.

What are short chains supposed to do? They are good at sitting there not doing anything, that's all they are good for.

There wouldn't even have been short chains at first. But short chains would've been the first chains.

The early atmosphere is known to have been low in o2 and ozone.
In fact, the best explanation for why we have so much oxygen is because of early (and current) life.

As for "life would burn up without it", this simply isn't true. Negative effects on modern life (esp the genome) and complete unviability for early life are two different things.

Dangerous UV radiation from our sun makes it "completely unviable for early life" as well. UV radiation alters chemical bonds. That's why it's harmful to life. But altering chemical bonds is just as harmful to non-life.

UV Radiation 'altering chemical bonds' amounts to to breaking bonds at higher energies.

Not only is Ozone not the only natural gas that can block UV, for instance CO2 can also (in fact this can create a free oxygen radical, allowing for the creation of ozone), but there's also the fact that not every place on Earth will be exposed to the same amount of radiation.

I don't see why proteins would have needed to exist in early life.

Proteins exist, they had to be created somewhere, some time, some how. However, if you are referring to early life consisted of "self-replicating molecules". WTF is that? You see, "self-replicating" is "spinning wheels". What good is it to create itself over and over other than using up the already limited materials. AND, if it were self-replicating, there should be trillions and trillions of these molecules in the fossil record (it's not there).

"What good is it to create itself over and over"
What do you mean what good? It didn't turn around and decide to exist for a reason.

"There should be trillions in the fossil record"
Like (well in a sense it is) asking why early life doesn't produce trillions of fossils.
Not everything fossilises.

Besides, it's plausible that there were only certain environments in which they could occur (e.g. hydrothermal vents)

I don't need to explain abiogenesis to not believe in God, you need to explain why we should believe in God.
None of these problems would demand a God if they were sound (and they aren't).

There is absolutely no other explanation for life. Unless you subscribe to the fact that the physical and natural laws required for chemistry and biology are not constant. What good then are laws if they don't work?

There are other explanations of life.
... and not all of them are natural.

You could believe that life just came into being randomly and magically.
Simpler (less presumptive) explanation than a God (in many ways), more reasonable.

Of course, any supernatural explanation (by definition) requires the laws not to be constant.

[Alethe]

[Replying to post 8 by H.sapiens]

I combined elements from your first reply and your latest. I'm trying to answer posts in the order I got them.

I'm going to stop there because your "thoughts" are much better debunked here: http://sphericalbullshit.wordpress.com/page/2/ (after the Game of Thrones stuff).

First, my "thoughts" on your very entertaining link (gave me a good laugh at his idiotic claims). I'll explain. First, few (if any) of his claims are observable. In fact, observable science goes against his claims. We can start with the errors in his very first "rebuttal".

If water was such a problem to the formation of these essential chemicals, we wouldn’t exist. We would fall over and die as the chemical reactions that sustain us refused to take place in the watery environment of our cells...the simple fact is that water cannot be a barrier to reaction.

I don't know how we can trust anything this guy says after this. He obviously doesn't know the difference between chemistry and microbiology. I mean, here he is claiming "water isn't a barrier to reaction", and tries to prove it because enzymes in living cells "piece together" peptides to form a kinetically stable structure despite our water content.

Yes folks, this evolutionist just proved that only life can produce life.
In fact, when we die, our protiens do breakdown because of water(producing both right- and left-handed amino acids in a racemic mixture, btw); and we aren't creating new ones. Outside of life, in a sterile, chemical world, water is a barrier to peptide bonding as peptides are water soluable (they break down in water).

So, thank you, sir, for "debunking my thoughts" and proving my point!

Homochirality is actually evidence for abiogeneisis. Amazing no one told you that.

I understand you spent a great deal of time copying and pasting from wiki's as "evidence" for homochirality, however, it's not what we observe in a sterile, chemical environment. The Murchison meteorite alone proves that. The age of the meteorite is estimated at 4.95 billion years, older than the earth. The fact that it still had "right-handed" enantiomers after all that time proves that they don't disappear.

So, all the theories evolutionists can give concerning homochirality don't hold up to actual observations.

Anything that is "self-replicating" will evolve, thus not "create itself over and over. If it used up limiting materials it would die, maybe many, maybe a few, did ... but clearly one did not use up limiting materials or evolved a way to shift from a limiting material to something else, perhaps several times.

Once it "evolves", it would stop self-replicating. Self-replicating chemicals have a very limited and specific chemical structure. They don't have long DNA chains that can mutate, so there is no "evolving". They either work, or they don't.

Each step in the abiogenetic "process" is a giant leap as each replicator needs to be created separately and independently. You can't get from amino adenosine triacid ester to a ribozyme - there's nothing in common with them. (Especially considering AATE only reacted within choroform and would not react in water.)

You are assuming that early proteins were exactly the same size as modern proteins, at least for the purpose of your calculation. I know of no reputable biologist who would suggest that - poof -> life started with exactly the same long proteins that it took billions of years to evolve.

Proteins are proteins are proteins. There are no "early proteins" or "modern proteins". They are merely peptides that can do something or not do something. Peptides that function are what we refer to as "proteins". Period.

1. Probabilities: what, exactly, are you calculating the probability of? What steps? Are you sure what steps fit in there? If you do, please come forward and claim your Nobel Prize, and a McArthur while your at it.

If you know anything of probabilities, all the "steps" are already included in the final result.

[Peter]

Atheists claim that life was created naturally and spontaneously from tiny chemicals into comparatively large, complex organisms (cells). They use "could have" a lot in theories, but when it's further explored, those theories run into scientific laws that say it "could not have". It is a massive jump from those tiny chemicals to cells and actually defies natural laws. Some of these laws include, but are not limited to:

• *Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html[quote]
*Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).[/quote]
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB025.html[quote]
*Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.[/quote]
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html[quote]
*Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).[/quote]
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html[quote]
*Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.[/quote]
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html[quote]
*Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).[/quote]
This is a novel argument. Proteins cannot form in the presence of water.
Memo to Science: Stop searching for water to find life. Complex chemistry can't happen in water because it dissolves everything.
There, that should take care of it. Silly scientists, what were they thinking?

[/list]
You see, I like science. I can trust science because it performs in consistent ways. The natural laws above actually inhibit or prevent life from forming.

Are you a scientist? If so, and you have studied the "natural laws" you cite above, how is it you come to completely different conclusions than the vast majority of your colleagues? Are you published? I would like to read anything you have authored on the impossibility of abiogenesis. It also goes without saying that you must have an alternative theory on the origin of life involving perhaps a divine chemist. I would be most interested to hear that too. Thanks.

[Divine Insight]

First, I'd just like to say that Peter did a wonderful job simply linking to a site that has already debunked all of these claims individually. It also shows that there is nothing new here in this thread since Alethe is doing nothing more than just rehashing old claims that have already been sufficiently debunked so many times over that people have created an entire website just to list these absurd claims.

*Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).

This is a novel argument. Proteins cannot form in the presence of water.
Memo to Science: Stop searching for water to find life. Complex chemistry can't happen in water because it dissolves everything.
There, that should take care of it. Silly scientists, what were they thinking?

Exactly. The idea that water is a bad place to look if you are seeking to find new life is truly absurd.

It also goes without saying that you must have an alternative theory on the origin of life involving perhaps a divine chemist. I would be most interested to hear that too. Thanks.

This is the most powerful issue as far as I'm concerned. Thus far all that Alethe has offered is old worn-out claims that have already been sufficiently debunked many times over.

Also complaining that science has it all wrong whist simultaneously claiming to like science is a bit of an oxymoron.

But far more to the point, where is there any alternative being offered?

What is the alternative to a universe that is supposedly so hostile to the creation of life that it would be impossible for life to exist in this universe if an alternative theory isn't being offered?

I mean, clearly life exists. So what's the theory of how it not only came to be, but how it continues to propagate without being deteriorated by these extremely hostile laws of physics.

I mean, even when we take a seed and plant it in the ground we need to water it before it will begin to grow. But water is supposed to be hostile to life according to Alethe. The seed dosn't even begin to germinate until it's been engorged with water. And then all these chemical reactions that Alethe claims are impossible take off like gangbusters.

So what is the alternative theory? That there exists some "Creator Chemist" who is guiding each and every molecule throughout the entire world?

I also ask, "Why did this creator create a universe with laws of physics that are so detrimental to the very life that it supposedly wants to create?"

And if this Creator Chemist is causing every chemical reaction to occur methodically by hand (or manually) then surely this Creator Chemist is personally responsible for every genetic malfunction, birth defect, and so on. There would be no room for any chemical 'accidents'.

So how could we explain things like Siamese twins for example? Based on Alethe's proposal this could only have happened if some Creator Chemist was guiding this to unfold in precisely this way.

It seems to me that any such "Creator Chemist" would need to be intentionally responsible for a lot of nasty stuff.

~~~~

I don't think these "Creationists" have ever truly thought through the consequences of a creator who has designed and controlled every little thing. That would amount to a pretty malicious creator I would think.

[Alethe]

[Replying to post 25 by Peter]

Hey, I can post random meaningless links, too.

*Probabilities: The sheer number of permutations required for even the simplest of molecules (proteins or ribozymes) defies laws of mathematics.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html

http://creationwiki.org/CB010

*Limited Materials: No experiment, no observation, nor study of any pre-biotic Earth conditions (including space) is able to come close to producing all the components required for life in the same place at the same time (amino acids, nucleic acids - particularly troublesome, sugars, and fatty acids).

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB025.html

http://creationwiki.org/Not_all_amino_a ... k.Origins)

*Homochirality: All experiments that produce life-required components also produce their mirrored image (racemic mixture), which prevents them from forming anything useful.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB040.html

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_ ... mino_acids

*Energy: The necessary energy required to create peptide or phosphodiester bonds is also used to break those bonds, preventing them from forming the long chains necessary for life. An example; any lightning strikes that would form bonds would break the bonds the very next strike (consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics especially in an open system).

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

http://creationwiki.org/2nd_law_of_ther ... _evolution

*Oxygen: Oxygen prevents bonding, but also creates ozone, protecting from the sun's UV rays. Life can't form with oxygen and life would burn up without it.

http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB030_1.html

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_ ... y_UV_light

*Water: Water is a byproduct when peptide bonds form. Water also works in reverse to break down the bonds (hydrolysis). Therefore, proteins could not form in or around water (consistent with Le Chatelier's Principle).

This is a novel argument. Proteins cannot form in the presence of water.
Memo to Science: Stop searching for water to find life. Complex chemistry can't happen in water because it dissolves everything.
There, that should take care of it. Silly scientists, what were they thinking?

Hey, finally a novel thought rather than finally copying and pasting a meaningless link. Deserves a novel answer, as in, riiiight... They already know that! Those silly scientists don't look in water to find life. Almost all modern experiments lack water, including those which found the "self replicating chemical" (called AATE). AATE only self catalyzed in chloroform, because it would not water. Nucleotide experiments use formamide, not water. Yet, evolutionists intentionally overlook important facts like that.

It is originally from reading talkorigins.org that I realized the BS that they spewed were lies. They only give enough information to make their argument look valid while leaving out important details, especially when those details hurt their cause and invalidated their argument; but they would use them anyway. Once I learned the truth of that, I realized that atheists live by faith, some supernatural law that supersedes all known scientific law. I want to know what that law is that they believe so vociferously, cause it sure aint science. Jashwell proposes magic. Anyone else have other ideas?