Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: donh
I am not. I am accounting for non-life form polymerization when I reminded you (in an earlier post) that dehydration polymerization would be impossible in a aqeuous environment (Ie the smokestacks). I also mentioned but a few prospects that have been, so far, dead-end points for abiogenesis. They are in my previous posts to you.

Of course I don't have the exact variable quantities, all of the damaging and supportive variables for abiogenesis, and a perfect model of the primeval (sp?) Earth.

If I did have such proof against abiogenesis, I would be in the top ten for scientists and would also erase the religious tenant of faith in this universe--because who would deny absolute proof of a Creator and therefore follow His Truth?
208 posted on 11/07/2003 3:48:27 PM PST by Loc123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]


To: Loc123
I am not. I am accounting for non-life form polymerization when I reminded you (in an earlier post) that dehydration polymerization would be impossible in a aqeuous environment (Ie the smokestacks).

This is just silly. Of course you can make polymers in "a(n) aqueous environment". Almost all polymerization is achieved by stripping hydrogen in some manner, whether in an aqueous environment or not.

I also mentioned but a few prospects that have been, so far, dead-end points for abiogenesis. They are in my previous posts to you.

What appears to me to be the case, is that you have learned a few chemical-sounding words that are making your brain rattle. It remains the case, despite your polysyllabic shenanigans, that there is no credible state-space any serious biologist supports, including Miller's pre-biotic soup, to which you have apparently attributed scientifi-magical powers, in which we suspect that amino acids turned into DNA-based cellular life forms, zip, zam, zoom. No such state-space credibly exists, no such selection criteria credibly exists, and so, as night follows day, no such fantastic calculation of the odds against spontaneous biogensis exists which holds any water, except in the overheated imaginations of the Discovery Institute & it's fellow-travelers.

Of course I don't have the exact variable quantities, all of the damaging and supportive variables for abiogenesis, and a perfect model of the primeval (sp?) Earth.

Indeed.

If I did have such proof against abiogenesis, I would be in the top ten for scientists and would also erase the religious tenant of faith in this universe--because who would deny absolute proof of a Creator and therefore follow His Truth?

There is no such thing as a proof in natural sciences, and there is no such thing as an "absolute proof" anywhere.

A proof OF random, spontaneous, instantaneous abiogenesis of DNA-based cellular life against extraordinary odds would not deny God's hand in creation--it would affirm it. No scientific demonstration of anything's proximate cause, in any manner closes out the possible existence of other causes. For aught anyone knows, before or after a proof of abiogensis, God's Hand directs every sperm to it's chosen egg.

Like many creationists, you are engaged in "play my game or I take my ball and go home". The best guess is that there was NO spontaneous abiogensis, at God's hand or otherwise, even if you strangle on words too long to pronounce properly in your desire to make this the battlefield. In all likely probability, before there was cellular DNA-based life, evolution was just as slow-moving as it is now, if not emensely slower. No big leaps through unlikely state-spaces, just the same little leaps through innumerable difficult state-spaces that selected out most of the candidates which we now observe.

241 posted on 11/09/2003 10:15:23 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson