the big bang ( Questions from a Teen )

quote:

---

ok so if nothing blew up y is it called the big bang?

---

If I remember right, when the theory was first proposed one of the people against the theory called it a "big bang". Somehow, the name stuck. It should probably be called the Big Expansion, but it doesn't sound quite as romantic, wouldn't you say?

quote:

---

We have seen that many evolutionists avoid aprobability analysis as if it were the plague. Small Wonder! The implications drawn from such analysis are horribly unnerving to those who embrace a non-theistic philosophy.

---

It is unnerving because the probabilities are all unwarranted. They make evo's cringe because they are bad math, and the people that use them are self-professed experts.Just as an example, lets use some creationist math to prove that you or I were never born.Just as an estimate, let's say there are 1 million cities in the world. This means, using creationist math, that the chances of you being born in the city your were born are 1 in a million. The chances of me being born in a certain city is also 1 in a million. The chances of both of us being born in precise cities is 1 in a million million, or 1:10¹². Therefore, I can say that these odds are too high and that neither of us were born. Of course, we know this isn't true. The odds of us being born are 1:1, because it happened, just as the odds of life occuring are 1:1, because there is life.The other flaw in creationist probabilities is that there is no agreement on what the first life was. Before probabilities can be ascribed to a specific DNA, RNA, or protein sequence, the actual sequence has to be known. To put it mildly, creationist construct their own probabilities from their day dreams in order to make people like yourself feel better about their faith. These probabilities have no ties to reality, nor are they indicative of reality.

quote:

---

I am trying to work up an example where the actual sequence need not be known but relies instead only on different symmetries that are SUBSEQUENTLY applied to various macromolecular series that are known.

---

Actually, those that are studying the RNA world, or abiogenesis through catalytic/enzymatic RNA, seem to be stepping in that direction. Instead of relying on specific sequence, they are tending more towards secondary structure such as stem-loops. Libraries of catalytic RNA can also be compared to find the simplist structural motif for a given reaction, be it substrate or replication specific.Just to go off on a tangent, but what if the sequence meant nothing, only the length. That is, what if there were certain conditions, be they inorganic or amino acid driven reactions, that will replicate DNA of a certain length regardless of the sequence. Within abiogenesis research, the sky is still the limit which is why I criticize proposed probabilities AGAINST abiogenesis. It is like making probabilities for a lottery without knowing how many ping pong balls there are.