Origin: Probability of a Single Protein Forming by Chance (Page 3): Wrong again, you said infinitesimally low. But even if you were right about the definition. You see still wrong on...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

No Rac, you lose. Infinity means that ANYTHING that CAN possibly happen WILL happen... 100%.

Heck, that means that you might actually agree with me on this issue!

Wrong again, you said infinitesimally low. But even if you were right about the definition. You see still wrong on your theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Infinitesimal
Hence, when used as an adjective in mathematics, infinitesimal means infinitely small, smaller than any standard real number.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Racmanaz wrote:

Wrong again, you said infinitesimally low. But even if you were right about the definition. You see still wrong on your theory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Infinitesimal
Hence, when used as an adjective in mathematics, infinitesimal means infinitely small, smaller than any standard real number.

Infinitesimally small and infinitely large are identical at the beginning and end of time.

You still don't grasp the true immensity of infinity.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

Infinitesimally small and infinitely large are identical at the beginning and end of time.

You still don't grasp the true immensity of infinity.

No such proof that infinite time exists. Even if that were true, life could never have produced by a non-living source. All evidence points to life originating and being produced by life sources. It’s you that does not grasp reality. Life begets life and non-life ONLY begets non-life, those are the observable scientific facts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Infinitesimal
Hence, when used as an adjective in mathematics, infinitesimal means infinitely small, smaller than any standard real number.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Racmanaz wrote:

No such proof that infinite time exists. Even if t... (show quote)

Your Wikipedia definition is irrelevant to a discussion of what infinity encompasses. When contemplating infinity you are not limited to "real numbers" because you can include ALL numbers, including imaginary numbers.

And before you say imaginary numbers don't exist, look up the meaning and use. Here is just one citation:

"Essentially, if what is being measured relies on a sine or cosine wave, the imaginary number is used. AC circuit analysis: Imaginary numbers are particularly applicable in electricity, specifically alternating current (AC) electronics."

As for your contention that only life begets life, start by defining "life" for us. And again, I will help you by citing from Wikipedia:

"Since there is no consensus for a definition of life, most current definitions in biology are descriptive."

What say YOU now, Oh Wise One?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

Your Wikipedia definition is irrelevant to a discu... (show quote)

You are deflecting again, the fact is that life ONLY comes from another life source and non-life NEVER produces a life source EVER. Those are the scientific facts. You can’t define life? I’m betting you can’t even define what a woman is either. If you can’t defend your position, then all you need to do is blur the definition of the word or phrase that opposes your weak position. You have done the same thing about the the issue of time, when finite time doesn’t favor your weak position, you just make a claim that time is infinite therefore you win, yet you lose anyway because non-living matter has NEVER produced a living organism of any kind.

National Park

Racmanaz wrote:

lol You are demonstrating signs of losing an argument. Like I said, science could not prove or disprove of a non-physical creator, and I don’t make that claim. My claim is that I believe in a God, or a creator by faith. You, however, believe in some sort of process through abiogenesis that life spontaneously developed from a non-life source. Yet there is no evidence that has ever happened and there is no evidence that it’s occurring now yet you believe in that mumbo-jumbo without any evidence.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Racmanaz wrote:

You are deflecting again, the fact is that life ON... (show quote)

You are wrong about non-life never producing life. All living things are made of the same "matter" as non-living things. It is simply a re-arrangement of atoms and molecules. All of the atomic elements are the same.

So given that living things are made of the same "stuff" as non-living things, in the infinity of time the "non-living stuff" could re-arrange itself into "living stuff."

But that is not enough; something has to give this glob of molecules "life." And that is something that you have yet to define.

You can differentiate living things from non-living things by their behaviour related to their ability to metabolize or reproduce. But given a blob of matter (call it a human, an organ, or even a lowly cell) what is the difference between a "live" cell and a "dead" cell? THAT is the essence of life, and I have yet to see a definition that is not "operational" (ie, it can no longer metabolize or reproduce).

Tell me what is missing in the cell that was alive and then died?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

You are wrong about non-life never producing life.... (show quote)

Sorry John you are very very wrong and you are being deceptive with twisting words. Yes, we know that life itself consist of matter and chemicals. Otherwise, we’d be invisible. What I have been saying and still saying is that life gets life and non-life only gets nonlife. There is no scientific or observable evidence that life is produced by nonlife. That is never happened And has never been shown to have occurred scientifically or observationally. What’s also an important issue is that nonlife can never produce consciousness it’s never been observed therefore, it’s never happened.

dakotacheryl Loc: Near Mt Rushmore

Rac. He is being intentionally misleading. Of course you are correct here but the back and forth will never come to a resolution.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Racmanaz wrote:

Sorry John you are very very wrong and you are bei... (show quote)

Define consciousness. And don’t bother with the dictionary definition, I can find that myself. Tell me what it means in practice. I don’t believe a rock or piece of metal has consciousness. Does a dog or cat? Does a slug or a worm? Does an amoeba? How about a bacterium, or a virus?

Consciousness is as hard to define as life itself.

I did my post-grad studies in cryobiology. I was able to freeze “live” cells, and when I thawed them some were alive and divided to produce cell colonies, others were alive right after thawing but then “died,” while others were dead upon thawing. Physically the cells were indistinguishable. So tell me, what is “life?”

BTW, I never was able to freeze “dead” cells and have them come to life after thawing. I really don’t know what “life” is.

But I do know that everyone and everything in the universe is “stardust” and with an infinite amount of time (yeah, I know you don’t understand infinity) a few molecules of the right type will come together under the right conditions to become “alive.”

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

Define consciousness. And don’t bother with the di... (show quote)

Yes John I am well aware of your past profession in biology which is very surprising, in respect of what you’re saying now on this forum. I would think you would know the difference unless you’re not being truthful about your profession that you retired from. I noticed that you’ve been pushing the goalpost when you start losing the argument in order to create another argument, which you think will debunk the arguments prior. Well, let me reiterate, that life gets life and none living matter does not be at life. There is no scientific evidence or observation that life originated from nonlife sources.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Racmanaz wrote:

Yes John I am well aware of your past profession i... (show quote)

In an infinite universe (time and space) you think that because we have not seen it, therefore it does not exist? We got past being the centre of the universe a long time ago. Infinity, my friend… infinity. It is HUGE!!!

MrBob Loc: lookout Mtn. NE Alabama

JohnFrim wrote:

Define consciousness. And don’t bother with the di... (show quote)

I am not going to get into a back and forth but I do believe your first paragraph is incorrect... These animals you mention DO have consciousness IMHO, but there is something else not related to biology and chemistry that other animals besides humans do not possess... That is called " Self Conscious Awareness ". We humans have this but I do not think it is related to genetics itself... I and others who believe as I, refer to this as the Soul. No, I am NOT going to respond to anything you might say as I am not into a never ending back and forth... State your rebuttal and move on... Opinions are cheap, including my own. A Lost soul has lost EVERYTHING... nothing could be worse, because then there is nothing !

pendennis

JohnFrim wrote:

In an infinite universe (time and space) you think that because we have not seen it, therefore it does not exist? We got past being the centre of the universe a long time ago. Infinity, my friend… infinity. It is HUGE!!!

You and I disagree on many subjects, but I'm with you on this one. In the early period of earth's development, our environment was hostile, to say the least. With a plethora of objects crashing into earth on a daily basis, we have no concept of just how many events happened that contributed to life coming from an array of amino acids which formed during earth's early development. Folks seem to ignore the near infinite number of chemical reactions which are started by lightning, sunlight, and even contact with rocks, and other materials. We can't conceive the complicated chemical reactions that created those amino acids, and then the chemical reactions which happened near constantly. In a time encompassing 3-4 billion years, no computer model can begin to duplicate the chain of events which lead to life forming from those chemicals.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

JohnFrim wrote:

In an infinite universe (time and space) you think that because we have not seen it, therefore it does not exist? We got past being the centre of the universe a long time ago. Infinity, my friend… infinity. It is HUGE!!!

There’s no evidence that this is an infinite universe. Although, if, and probabilities mean, absolutely nothing unless you have evidence to back those fairies up. From what we see now the evidence points that life only originates from life life begins life non-life gets non-life. Those are the facts and you know it.