To the bolded, I'll add that the Urey-Miller experiment verified that this was possible. Amino acids (building blocks for proteins) were created using conditions similar to what the early Earth was like.

 

Also, has anyone ever heard of the vitalist theory? In short, it was the belief that humans could not create organic compounds - that a "vital" spark that was needed for such an event to occur - not a biochemical process. This was disproven when Fredrick Wohler synthetically created urea which, as you can imagine, had previously only been produced via kidneys of mammals.

 

Now...WHY he wanted to create THAT compound is beyond me. But he did prove the vitalists incorrect.

FWIW, I'm not saying that amino acids spontaneously creating compounds is impossible for reasons of a chemistry nature. I'm just saying that the astronomically large odds against reaching the perfect, specific combination that wound up being the basis of all life on earth completely by random chance make it impossible (as well as the confouding factors such as protein creation and such).

 

And I've never heard of that theory but that's interesting....when was it popular?

Charles Darwin suggested that simple chemicals in small bodies of water spontaneously formed organic compounds with the aid of energy (such as heat, light, etc.). Using our hypothetical unicellular prokaryote with one DNA strand of a 100 bases (smaller than what actually exists), the odds of a particular lucky combination would be 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. (4 to the 100th)

 

This is not a proof that evolution did not occur, nor is a proof of any specific religion (such as Christianity). However, I think it is illogical to leave such astronomical odds to random chance. Rather, I think it is more logical to assume that there is some intelligent being that started this whole process. So, I've chosen to believe in an imaginary ghost, and you think that I'm crazy. I think that you are confusing the improbable with the impossible. I think that your faith in astronomically unlikely scenarios may be stronger than my faith in God (I can say this because I have doubts). If you categorize craziness by faith in ideas with no proof and plenty of reasons to not believe, then I say you are the crazy one. An intelligent being is more likely than random chance.

While I wholeheartedly believe in God, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. With the billions of galaxies out in the known universe, could it not be assumed that these same conditions exist on enough similar planets to make it not only probable, but nearly certain that the necessary biological combinations occurred on at least one--if not a countless number--of them? Perhaps we're just the lucky ones enjoying the results.

 

On the other hand, when you think about the origins of the universe as currently theorized, doesn't it make sense that the ball of energy which went "bang" had to have come from somewhere? What happened right before the Big Bang to make it happen? If the Universe is not infinite, what lies just beyond it? If it is infinite, where did it come from?

 

This topic has always fascinated me. To attempt to grasp the infinite, or conversely, make sense of absolutes. Neither concept can be truly grasped by our little minds. And that is the ultimate paradox.

It's an interesting way of looking at the argument.

 

I'm not sure if this is in the same vein of your premise cch but I once "Shot the Moon" in Rook because this was all my partner and I could do to keep the other team from winning and give us a chance. We did it. Probably not as hard as drawing the spade set but we did get everything we needed to take every trick before we even looked at the cards.

While I wholeheartedly believe in God, let me play devil's advocate for a moment. With the billions of galaxies out in the known universe, could it not be assumed that these same conditions exist on enough similar planets to make it not only probable, but nearly certain that the necessary biological combinations occurred on at least one--if not a countless number--of them? Perhaps we're just the lucky ones enjoying the results.

 

On the other hand, when you think about the origins of the universe as currently theorized, doesn't it make sense that the ball of energy which went "bang" had to have come from somewhere? What happened right before the Big Bang to make it happen? If the Universe is not infinite, what lies just beyond it? If it is infinite, where did it come from?

 

This topic has always fascinated me. To attempt to grasp the infinite, or conversely, make sense of absolutes. Neither concept can be truly grasped by our little minds. And that is the ultimate paradox.

For argument's sake, we'll assume 1 trillion galaxies (a number much more than estimated). The odds remain 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, to 1. Once again, these odds are not the odds of life randomly happening- these are the odds of the right combination of a single strand of DNA smaller than actually existing in any cell. This is not taking into account any protein combinations (which has much greater unlikelihood). So, without something else facilitating this incredibly unlikely event- no, I don't believe that it is likely that it happened somewhere else (by random chance).

 

The universe is not infinite (assuming you are talking in regards to it having a beginning- I'm not sure what is accepted in regards to its expansion). I think what lies beyond it is the Uncaused Cause.

For argument's sake, we'll assume 1 trillion galaxies (a number much more than estimated). The odds remain 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, to 1. Once again, these odds are not the odds of life randomly happening- these are the odds of the right combination of a single strand of DNA smaller than actually existing in any cell. This is not taking into account any protein combinations (which has much greater unlikelihood). So, without something else facilitating this incredibly unlikely event- no, I don't believe that it is likely that it happened somewhere else (by random chance).

But again, with such an endless number of "hands" being played, it only seems logical that the "13 spades" may (or probably) happened elsewhere as well.

But again, with such an endless number of "hands" being played, it only seems logical that the "13 spades" may (or probably) happened elsewhere as well.

 

Why is it endless? There is not an infinite amount of galaxies or planets.

Well, seeing as how while playing a game of Spades one of my friends was dealt all Diamonds, I say this easily can happen randomly.

Why is it endless? There is not an infinite amount of galaxies or planets.

Depends on which theory you subscribe to. But even if there isn't, there has to be enough actual planets to make the odds much more favorable.

You all ever heard the expression from Stalin, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." I think that is what some of you are doing with the numbers. UKMustang- even if you think that getting dealt a perfect hand in spades is entirely likely, you have to consider the difference in odds....169,066,442 to 1 as opposed to 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. And, to emphasize, that isn't the chances of life starting....just a certain strand of DNA smaller than any strand found on any cell on Earth. BF- the factors that you are adding into the equation are hardly significant from the hundreds of other factors that I could add in.

 

All I'm trying to emphasize is that way, way too much was exactly right for only the powers of random chance controlling it. A little more or a little less energy or matter and the Big Bang theory results in a lifeless crunch or an expansion so fast that no stars (and therefore chemical elements) could form. Leaving it to the random powers of chance takes a faith in something so unlikely that I find it to be an impossibility.

Im not neccesarily in the camp that life started at random. However, I would trust the numbers and probablilities thrown out by scientists as much as the guy sitting across from me telling me he has a full house. Science is not math, no matter how much they claim it is.

Im not neccesarily in the camp that life started at random. However, I would trust the numbers and probablilities thrown out by scientists as much as the guy sitting across from me telling me he has a full house. Science is not math, no matter how much they claim it is.

 

Who claims that science is math? Math is the "language" that describes science, yes, but the two are not interchangeable.

You all ever heard the expression from Stalin, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." I think that is what some of you are doing with the numbers. UKMustang- even if you think that getting dealt a perfect hand in spades is entirely likely, you have to consider the difference in odds....169,066,442 to 1 as opposed to 1,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. And, to emphasize, that isn't the chances of life starting....just a certain strand of DNA smaller than any strand found on any cell on Earth. BF- the factors that you are adding into the equation are hardly significant from the hundreds of other factors that I could add in.

 

All I'm trying to emphasize is that way, way too much was exactly right for only the powers of random chance controlling it. A little more or a little less energy or matter and the Big Bang theory results in a lifeless crunch or an expansion so fast that no stars (and therefore chemical elements) could form. Leaving it to the random powers of chance takes a faith in something so unlikely that I find it to be an impossibility.

 

If you don't mind, where did you get your numbers from? If I missed it, I apologize.

BF- the factors that you are adding into the equation are hardly significant from the hundreds of other factors that I could add in.

Additional factors don't matter, mathematically speaking.

 

I'm in the unique position of debating your premise while believing that your conclusion is correct. :idunno:

If you don't mind, where did you get your numbers from? If I missed it, I apologize.

 

A book. To be fair it was a philosophy book. But the math is simple. The numbers regarding the deck of cards are in a link above. The other number is merely 4^100 (4 different nucleic bases in a DNA strand of 100 bases). I think it is that simple, but if that sounds fishy to you then I'll verify later if it is that easy.

Who claims that science is math? Math is the "language" that describes science, yes, but the two are not interchangeable.

 

Noone on here has made that claim, I agree. Whoever came up with the statistical odds on this happening however, are assuming pure random chance on mutations. That is not neccesarily the case, thus the math they used is worthless.