Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA&t=89s

dakotacheryl Loc: Near Mt Rushmore

And, If a random accident in nature created an actual living single cell organism...why can't scientists today, with all of the computer power, and technology create one?

Texcaster Loc: Queensland

" ... and why are there still monkeys ... 'evolution s**mmers'? " Jim, Scopes' very grateful monkey

pendennis

dakotacheryl wrote:

And, If a random accident in nature created an actual living single cell organism...why can't scientists today, with all of the computer power, and technology create one?

It's likely that life got its start numerous times from unlinked chemical reactions. It's not that scientists aren't trying, but the number of combinations of amino acids reacting in concert with the right electrical charge from lightning, solar reaction, or static electricity is beyond the capacity of even the most powerful computers and computer simulators. And we don't know whether life got its start in the oceans, some primordial swamp goo, or just where.

Life likely did not survive its first start-up. It took billions of tries, and trials and errors before life took hold. And that was for a single cell organism. More complex, i.e. multi-cell organisms, took eons.

Evolution is not a straight line, from one cell, to mankind; it's branching. It's why we still have apes and chimpanzees.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

pendennis wrote:

It's likely that life got its start numerous times... (show quote)

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

dakotacheryl wrote:

And, If a random accident in nature created an actual living single cell organism...why can't scientists today, with all of the computer power, and technology create one?

Maybe that's because it never happened that way ever, you would think we would be observing such an incident currently and often. We have the perfect conditions for life to originate and thrive yet we observe nothing of the sort.

dakotacheryl Loc: Near Mt Rushmore

exactly

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

Maybe that's because it never happened that way ever, you would think we would be observing such an incident currently and often. We have the perfect conditions for life to originate and thrive yet we observe nothing of the sort.

We do not have the perfect conditions for life to originate. Several reasons, but one big one is that life already thrives on Earth. And will eat anything the even remotely looks like food.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

We do not have the perfect conditions for life to originate. Several reasons, but one big one is that life already thrives on Earth. And will eat anything the even remotely looks like food.

lol BS, we have the perfect conditions for life to originate and to thrive. So you’re saying just because there’s life now that a life will not spontaneously appear and develop? Lol what a bunch of fantasy nonsense.

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

lol BS, we have the perfect conditions for life to originate and to thrive. So you’re saying just because there’s life now that a life will not spontaneously appear and develop? Lol what a bunch of fantasy nonsense.

I have no idea what you would classify as "perfect conditions".

And what I'm saying is that a new life is likely to just be food for existing life.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

I have no idea what you would classify as "perfect conditions".

And what I'm saying is that a new life is likely to just be food for existing life.

There is one problem, no new life has ever been observed to have occurred spontaneously. Abiogenesis is nothing but unfounded nonsense and science fiction.

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

There is one problem, no new life has ever been observed to have occurred spontaneously. Abiogenesis is nothing but unfounded nonsense and science fiction.

And why would you expect it now?

But more to the point, the supernatural has never been obsered either. So it's unfounded nonsense and fantasy.

Science is busy trying to delve into how live could originate. Creationism is trying to prevent that by constantly denying the possibility as well as promoting the unfounded nonsense of a supernatural creator. Especially one that transcends time, has the power to create the entire universe, the willingness to dabble in creation of a singular planet (Earth), and the finesse to create the molecular basis for life.

All this is just so you can have some hope that there is meaning to life as well as an afterlife so when you die you aren't just dust.

Supernatural being mumbo jumbo is lunacy.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

And why would you expect it now? br br But more t... (show quote)

I see that you resorted to deflection once again, you do that when you realize you’re losing the argument. So, if believing in a creator that cannot be proven through science is mumble jumble, then a biogenesis, which should be able to be proven by science or even by observation is even more of a big mumbo-jumbo that you believe in.

jcboy3

Racmanaz wrote:

I see that you resorted to deflection once again, you do that when you realize you’re losing the argument. So, if believing in a creator that cannot be proven through science is mumble jumble, then a biogenesis, which should be able to be proven by science or even by observation is even more of a big mumbo-jumbo that you believe in.

You are deflecting. You made a claim, I asked why.

As for a creator; what would the experiment be to prove a creator?

As for biogenisis, the experiment would be to show under what conditions such a process would occure, and then show that such conditions are likely for early Earth.

And the crux of the matter is, that exhortations about a creator are both unfounded and unproven.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

jcboy3 wrote:

You are deflecting. You made a claim, I asked why.

As for a creator; what would the experiment be to prove a creator?

As for biogenisis, the experiment would be to show under what conditions such a process would occure, and then show that such conditions are likely for early Earth.

And the crux of the matter is, that exhortations about a creator are both unfounded and unproven.

Well, you are quite illiterate aren’t you? I never said that the creator could be proven through science. I’ve said that on many occasions. And I don’t say that a creator exist I said, I believe the creator exist. But here you are believing in some mumble jumble Abiogenesis that has never been proven no evidence of it, and has never been observed.