alphamale Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 If I have a group of ingredients in the kitchen such as flour and eggs, they do not spontaneously turn into a cake. I have to mix them together and make it myself. The chances of it happening alone are zero. thats not true. if you add a very long period of time, say 5 Billion years, the chances get better and better. what if over that time period there were a number of earthquakes that by chance caused the flour and eggs to mix?? Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 4, 2006 Author Share Posted November 4, 2006 thats not true. if you add a very long period of time, say 5 Billion years, the chances get better and better. what if over that time period there were a number of earthquakes that by chance caused the flour and eggs to mix?? The chances that the egg would rot before then is what would happen. You'd never get your cake. The measurements would have to be exact and there are only a limited amount of the ingredients to support so much trial and error. The temperature would have to be warm at the time of the earthquake, enough to bake it and so on. Also, you wouldn't have billions of years. Once the earth was formed life was created within thousands of years only. If there is a God, it didn't take him long to think about creating/inventing life. Likewise organic material is very sensitive. It's iimpossible anything alive would survive on a meteor. They start out huge but due to friction and heat practically evaporate while moving through space and very small fragments remain that might even come near earth. The gravitational pull of our neighboring large planets act as a buffering shield that repel such objects from reaching the earth and very few small ones ever do. None could possibly support life as we know it. Sorry to ruin your theory. But maybe now you can come up with another one to share. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 4, 2006 Share Posted November 4, 2006 The chances that the egg would rot before then is what would happen. You'd never get your cake. what if you had an egg that could theoretically last billions of years? and what if there were millions of so-called kitchens that had eggs and flour. over 5 billioins years the chance of one of the kitchens producing a "cake" is substantial... Likewise organic material is very sensitive. It's iimpossible anything alive would survive on a meteor. you only need amino acids sister. they aren't "alive" but are the building blocks of life. They start out huge but due to friction and heat practically evaporate while moving through space and very small fragments remain that might even come near earth. . the Earth did not always have an atmosphere Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 4, 2006 Author Share Posted November 4, 2006 what if you had an egg that could theoretically last billions of years? and what if there were millions of so-called kitchens that had eggs and flour. over 5 billioins years the chance of one of the kitchens producing a "cake" is substantial... Are you also going to argue that the chances of finding a beautifully crafted golden wedding band in a gold mine is possible given enough time that one will eventually turn up? Will chicken soup also spontaneously be made, given a chicken that can live billions of years, by chance it will be slaughtered and cooked with noodles? No, you are never going to have the cake. Ever. With that said, imagine how much more complicated it is to create a living being with a brain, arteries and so on. You think give a few thousand years and boom they will spontaneously be made? Yeah, just like your cake. you only need amino acids sister. they aren't "alive" but are the building blocks of life. Excuse me but today it is possible to make amino acids from scratch in a lab however scientists have not been able to give them the breath of life just yet. If you think amino acids came from outer space, you should update your reading on science. Prehistoric earth conditions can be duplicated in labs today with amino acids made. Let go of your outer space theory. the Earth did not always have an atmosphere During the time it didn't, it was not capable to support life so if a meteor, even a bus full of people landed on earth, they'd be dead. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 forget it F2BM, its not worth debating this issue... Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 5, 2006 Author Share Posted November 5, 2006 Well I didn't mean to attack if that's why. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Well I didn't mean to attack if that's why. no, I have an extremely strong background in math & science and I think you're missing some points I'm trying to make. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 5, 2006 Author Share Posted November 5, 2006 no, I have an extremely strong background in math & science and I think you're missing some points I'm trying to make. That makes both of us. But I'd like to think I've made you think a second time about some of your theories. Link to post Share on other sites
maoserr Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 I hate it when people use the probability argument. FYI: Probability is used to predict the chance of FUTURE events, not past events. History does not always happen along the most probable cause, so please stop this nonsense. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 You can't get by on math and science. You have to work with particle physics to understand why this question is irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 But I'd like to think I've made you think a second time about some of your theories. I don;t think so sister... Link to post Share on other sites
Enema Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 The microbes on the comet would have to be able to exist on the conditions on earth. There are billions of comets yet little evidence that more than a small handful have ever hit earth. The chances of the comet having microbes in the first place, then that they survive the extreme heat of its travel and the tiniest of all possibility the earth would be compatible to its survival are smaller than me winning the lotto every single time I play. An estimated 37,000-40,000 tons of material hit the earth and do not burn up on impact every year. New viruses and bacteria are discovered every day. Interesting stuff. Link to post Share on other sites
magichands Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 An estimated 37,000-40,000 tons of material hit the earth and do not burn up on impact every year. This is why you should always wear a helmet. But fortunately the Earth's surface is two-thirds water. New viruses and bacteria are discovered every day. That part is not the least bit surprising. Sequencing is in its infancy. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Fun2BMe Posted November 5, 2006 Author Share Posted November 5, 2006 An estimated 37,000-40,000 tons of material hit the earth and do not burn up on impact every year. New viruses and bacteria are discovered every day. Interesting stuff. And not one piece of those materials have ever been found to not only have any bacteria or life but even any traces of them once existing on them. I haven't come across any scientific papers that use this argument, only UFO cults. We also find new species of animals every day such as a small primate discovered in South America just a couple of years ago as one example, let alone microscopic organisms. It's only been a few years since we discovered life exists in the extreme cold climates of the icy north! And we are nowhere near documenting all the variety. Link to post Share on other sites
konfused Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Probability is the essence not only of science, but also of our everyday decisions. Scientific research relies on probability everytime it tries to prove something. Rightly stated, to prove something outright is not possible, nor is it the objective of science. Science only wishes to find support. It is up to our rational minds to decide whether we wish to act according to such support. You are standing on the top of a skyscraper. How will you get down? Most likely, you will take an elevator. Why is that? Because if you jump off the building, gravity will beckon you to the ground. Is it possible that you will survive? Surely. But you learn early that gravity is a real, potent force. You learn this by knee scapes and falling off your bike. So when you are standing on the skyscraper, you make a rational decision to accept that gravity will drag you to the ground in such a way that would not be beneficial to you. When such a decision becomes routine, we know longer have to consciously classify it as rational even though it is. In fact, we often call those contemplating testing the law of gravity in such a way as crazy. Consider breathing and our hearts beating. They are obviously important decisons to be made. They become so routine, however, that we allow our subconscious to take them over. Our rational brains require much more energy to function. The question of finding a ring in a gold mine has nothing to do with evolution. Scientifically speaking, finding a ring in a gold mine is not likely. But that is not evolution. Evolution is a step-wise process. It has nothing to do with chance and everything to do with probability. There is no foresignt in it, it exists only in hindsight. Organisms do not exert an external pressure on natural selection in order to survive. They simply are the ones that do not die. They do not intentionally pass their characteristics on to their offspring. They just happen to be the organism left alive in the right environment to pass on these characteristics. The cake analogy also very much misses the way that evolution works. Cakes are not manifesting themselves from thin air. However, a cake could be a little bit sweeter. One could add some extra sugar to the batter. If you add to much, the cake will lose it's integrity, so to speak, and cease to be a cake. Much the same with evolution. Animals can vary in many ways. The variation in the pH of their blood may be able to fluctuate a bit, but if it breaches the integrity, the organim ceases to be and dies. As the conditions in a particular environment change, those organims that have not breached this boundary survive. Subsequently, their bodies shift the average variation to a greater or lesser extent. There are many scientists working on the origin of life. One for instance is studying the arrangement of molecules on clay particles. This is interesting because some molecules have charges as do clay minerals. This attraction and repulsion is one of the most fundamental forces known. I would conjecture that life began soon after the Earth was formed. Only because heat 'stirs' things up. There would be more activity and chance of the beforementioned molecular arrangement. Let's not confuse this with the ill regards for chance in evolution. Such an arrangement would be chance and very unlikely. But given enough time the probability decreases further and further, in hindsight of course. Link to post Share on other sites
alphamale Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 The cake analogy also very much misses the way that evolution works. Cakes are not manifesting themselves from thin air. well thats what I was trying to say....that F2BM knows little of science Link to post Share on other sites
magichands Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Evolution is a step-wise process. It has nothing to do with chance and everything to do with probability. There is no foresignt in it, it exists only in hindsight. First of all, the word "stepwise" infers a process of "refinement" - that's somewhat misleading. Most of "evolution" is essentially random drift. Secondly, "chance" and "probability" are synonymous. If I was you I'd be rewriting your (my?) second sentence. Link to post Share on other sites
bluetuesday Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 well thats what I was trying to say....that F2BM knows little of science we all know little about so many things, alpha. the fact you believe it is more probable that the ingredients of a cake could spontaneously combine and bake themselves (given enough time), rather than believe that someone could go into the kitchen and whip a cake up (given enough time), is a great insight into your mind. and if you DO believe that anything is possible - that given enough time a cake could form and bake itself - why do you not believe that given enough time, god could exist? if there were enough scenarios and enough time, if ANYTHING was possible, surely one of the things possible would be that god exists? i am not a scientist (clearly!) but i do know that the absolute refusal to challenge what you think you know is the antithesis of the impulse that drives scientific discovery. i don't believe that given enough time, a monkey sitting at a keyboard would accidentally type out perfectly the complete works of shakespeare. the odds against that happening are simply too astronomical to consider. the odds against a creative god existing, however, are not astronomical. without proof either way, god may exist or god may not exist. scientists get around this by claiming that the concept of god is irrelevant and only that which can be proven is 'real'. yet science and god are not opposites. the pursuit of both is a leap into the unknown. both deal with seeking to understand the world. one asks 'why?', one asks 'how?', that is all. and let's not forget that scientists are unable to prove the existence of the planet on which we're living because everything we experience with our senses - everything - is subjective and illusory. but assuming the unreality we see can be quantified, the chances god exists remain higher than the chances a room full of dismantled aeroplane parts could somehow leap together to form a working jumbo jet. Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Again and again religion has turned out to be false. There is no Apollo, there is no Thor, the list goes on and on for religions and gods that proved to be false. But at the time those people believed in those gods as much as people today believe in the new global gods. Perhaps in another 6,000 years humans will look at us and wonder how we could be so ignorant to believe in such things, much like we look at those that believed in mythology before us. Link to post Share on other sites
lovelorcet Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Some of you people here do not even understand what science is and how it is carried out. Science is not about "believing" something, it is about what you can prove and what is probable based on what you can show. Many people think that just because they know something or don't know something that they can talk science. Well it doesn't work like that and picking a part alpha's arguments are a perfect example of this. Religion answers absolutely none of the relevant biological questions that I have to work with every single day but understanding how certain gene families coordinate developmental processes though-out evolution tells me a lot. But these types of arguments are so pointless with so many people, seriously, someone telling me there is no evolution and it is only a theory is like telling your auto mechanic that you car does not run on gas but is fairy dust powered. The possibility that a spore of a life form came from space and landed on the earth is highly POSSIBLE as certian forms of many organisms can endure extreme environments for hundreds of year. It is possible to construct your own viruses from chemically synthesized DNA fragments and it is only a matter of time until someone feels like making their own designed microbes. Breath of life?? Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster_DAR Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 The earth has had 4 billion years to reveal the existence of life as we know it, my friends that is a very long time. If you factor in chance and probablility, the brings the odds somewhat favorable for things that would seem impossible due to the enourmous amount of time considered. Modern man has only been around for a few thousand years (perhaps a million), so for us to say that evolution and origins of life are not plausable, would be null. Consider the first few billion years of the earths existence, life didn't evolve any further than algae and molds, plant and animal life is only very recent considering the earth's age. Given this seemingly infinite time, I think a cake could coalesce and bake itself. Science is not perfect all the time, but it provides a more accurate picture of things by using proof of concepts and some material evidence. Religion really has no material evidence to backup it's claims, unless you believe the nonsense that shows up in the news once in a while [sIZE=2][COLOR=#222222]"the Holy Shroud of Turin"[/COLOR][/sIZE]. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Even science as we know it is still in the early stages. How old is science? Real science? So of course the unexplained is not explained as of yet. Fossils placed here by the devil? Why? Amazing......... so amazing. Link to post Share on other sites
Moose Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 My thoughts: Tell you what lovelorcet, as soon as the scientists can create life from thin air, I'll start studying how they did it. I'll even study it if they claim they've figured out where life came from. The truth of the matter is, they will never know. Where did life come from? I believe man has some pretty good clues, but ultimately life came from God, and yes, He probably did use science....that shouldn't surprise us. Link to post Share on other sites
Art_Critic Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 but ultimately life came from God, and yes, He probably did use science....that shouldn't surprise us. How old is God ?? 10,000 years old ? or 4.5 billion ? Link to post Share on other sites
lovelorcet Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 My thoughts: Tell you what lovelorcet, as soon as the scientists can create life from thin air, I'll start studying how they did it. I'll even study it if they claim they've figured out where life came from. The truth of the matter is, they will never know. Where did life come from? I believe man has some pretty good clues, but ultimately life came from God, and yes, He probably did use science....that shouldn't surprise us. I am pretty sure I will see custom made microbes in my life time... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts