Before the Big Bang

It's not totally clear waht you mean -- but either way, you're wrong.If you are really claiming that there has not been enough time for the evolution of species by random events, then that is sort of right, but since evolution of species does not happen by random events it's kind of irrelevant. There is a random component in evolution, but evolution also includes the decidedly non-random component of selection, which makes the overall process not purely random.If you are instead claiming that there has not been enough time for the original life to come into existence by random events then, sorry, you're just talking through your hat. Nobody has enough information to calculate any meaningful probability or required time for life to come into existence by chance. Nobody even has enough information to estimate a probability or required time. Not you, not me, not Jonathan Wells, not Jonathan Sarfati, not the late Sir Fred Hoyle, not Henry Morris, not anybody. We just don't know. We do know that life exists, that many key steps in possible ways that life could have come about are themselves possible and pretty likely under the right conditions, and we do not know of any key steps that are impossible or particularly unlikely. So the jury is still out, but none of the evidence we have indicates that it couldn't have happened.

How do you know there was nothing to select from?There are several plausible hypotheses. I kind of like the one in which naturally formed self-replicating molecules get trapped in naturally forming lipid bubbles, which turns out to be evolutionarily advantageous, and they start evolving toward being cells. But there are several other ideas.See The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance?, Origins of Life, and The Beginnings of Life on Earth.

Unsupported assertion, based solely on your prejudices.

The late Sir Fred Hoyle was (in this case) flat-out wrong. He made a calculation based on garbage assumptions and produced garbage. See Claim CF002.1 and Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. Not being able to explain it no is not the same as "it's imposible" or "we'll never be able to explain it". Crick did not rule out the possibility of abiogenesis. But real scientists will, in these cases, because in these cases those giants of scoence were wrong. You are using the "argument from authority" fallacy. Giants of science or not, their claims stand and fall on the evidence and the validity of their deductions. They were wrong.

Then show your calculations.

Crick didn't make the claim that you ascribe to him, and he didn't have the information we have now, not by a long shot. So he's irrelevant.Hoyle started with garbage assumptions and, big surprise, his calculation produced garbage. The scenario for which he calculated was a "strawman" that nobody seriously proposes could have happened, and he put in meaningless and made-up numbers to start with. He even totally ignored the laws of chemistry!In addition he made another serious and fundamental mistake of assuming the the life we see is the only kind of life that could possibly evolve; he should have calculated the odds of any kind of life appearing.Try an analogy. Throw a penny towards a football field from way high up. The probability of life arising is like the probability of the penny landing on the field. The probability that Hoyle calculated is like calculating the probability that the penny lands on one particular specified blade of grass and then claiming that the penny can't land on the field because it's so improbable that the penny would land on that particular blade of grass. We don't know the probability of the penny landing on the field without more information (such as "what do you mean by way high up?" and "How many pennies do we get to throw?" and several others); but we definitley don't know that it couldn't land on the field just because the exact place it landed is improbable. Incredibly improbable stuff happens all the time.He made two errors that anyone knowledgable in undergraduate statistics shouldn't have made. He was great in many ways, but he royally screwed the pooch on that one.See Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations.

Oh, yeah, I beleive it. I also believe you didn't think about or understand the calculations that you've seen..

No, I disqualified your statements on the basis that you misrepresented the position of one (Crick; see the quote above in Message 91) and that the other (Hoyle) was wrong. And I provided details as to exactly how and why Hoyle was wrong and a link to further detail (by a real expert in the field). No, you do not. You fail to understand that I am explaining a complex subject as simply and as best as I can in this limited medium, but providing links to places where more detailed information is available. I am not appealing to authorities as you have. Read Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. Feel free to look up the scientific references cited therein. When you thoroughly understand that document, you will be qualified to discuss the subject.

True. I don't really know about your abilities, but I do have a working hypothesis based on what I've seen of you so far. Then why are you borrowing opinions from Hoyle and presenting them as fact when you obviously don't understand the basis for them?

I have no such authority, and it doesn't matter in the slightest. There is no such authority for anyone to have. I am a rational human being, capable of thought and evaluation. That's all I need.In science, the evidence is all that matters. When an intelligent, eminent, and learned scientist such as Sir Fred Hoyle is wrong, he's wrong, and anyone can call him on it. Scientific findings stand or fall on their own, not on the so-called "authority" of the person making the claim.If my arguments are wrong, they're wrong. If they're right, they're right. Who's making the argument, or the attributes of the person making the argument, are irrelevant. You are steadfastly avoiding discussion of the evidence and the arguments in favor of discussing the people, and that's a fallacy on which a moderator may call you soon.I've made my arguments, presented a brief precis of the evidence, and pointed you to easily accessible deeper discussion of my arguments and evidence.So, the ball's in your court now; we've pointed out why Sir Fred was wrong and why you've misinterpreted/misrepresented Crick. Time for you to discuss our arguments rather than committing more appeal-to-authority and ad-hominem fallacies.{fixed typo}This message has been edited by JonF, 02-16-2005 20:02 AM

No, absolutely not, although it could be decided based on almost no knowledge of probability. See Message 1.

Ned's gonna be so pissed ... we should be doing this in the appropriate thread. Nope. See Message 3 and please reply there Hoyle made a mistake, Crick and Wald don't agree, and I see no reason to believe that Barghoorn (note spelling) agrees.