Probability of Life Arising Calculations

Okay - I can give a short but not full response now but more input might be added later.I admitt that I didn't intend this topic to happen - but people have jumped on mike as usual - because he has the truth of Christ. You see - there is no actual evidence of pre-biotic conditions on earth which could make this primordial soup - I'm afraid it really does only exist in bad restaurants.And so - it seems with the bombardment of early earth through meteor activity - the time gap for life was just too short - life simply couldn't arise in the time gap required for this primordial soup..Nor is there evidence for the speculations of chemical evolution. More highly recommended reading concerning this is in those links Kendemyer provided. Excellent read!Not that I am closed-minded to the possibilities of abiogenesis - I just think it highly improbable. But the problem is Ned - that various gas giants tear worlds apart, orbital inclinations have to be correct - Jupiter is perfect as a shield - but the fact is that scientists are finding it more and more unlikely that there is life elsewhere. Probability of lifeFurthermore - to completely ignore the supernatural implications of life is to be unfair to yourself.even if possible evolution happened - it seems and looks like design is here in this solar system, and that the God of the bible is the only God, and none else beside him.

Speculations about "possible" pre-biotic conditions isn't evidence though - it's speculation. Surely abiogenesis is based on speculation. I might admitt defeat actually - because if it is DNA based then it will have been from earth. So - infact you recommend a good falsification of Hugh's supernatural indications.But Loudmouth - You know I would accept defeat, do you cut me to the quick?And I also know about natural selection - cos you told me about it.Remember - my argument isn't against evolution of life on earth in this thread - I just think it's improbable that abiogenesis is the way it came about is all.I think it's fair to say that I backed up my assertion Dan - I provided what you wanted - and I don't even intend to go through it, as it was requested by you - not me. Listen - this is your party - I was happy to stay in my cage in the faith and belief section.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-18-2004 04:27 PM

Okay - I'll respond to less of a chance (tht's Dan in english money) - as I didn't respond to his previous post. And you other naughty confused evo-babas will have to wait. But Dan - it took me ages to find that link, and the recommended figures are most rigorously scrutinised in order of fair play. (LOL)Anyway - I still say that life arose supernaturally - as the evidence indicates, whereas surely there is no real abiogenesis evidence. If you r reasonable Dan - surely you consider a supernatural creator as creating life - through creation, and then making it possibly evolve. How open are you to that possibility?Because it seems that these figures show that life is unlikely.Consider conditions alone - Gas giants - too big, in the wrong place, the habitable zone etc.. The sun being right.It's all good and well saying that life can adapt without showing it could in very inhospitable conditions. I don't know - having been forced over here by you and Ned - I think it's not my party - remember Amhodli and Shraff didn't even back their assertions up - but mikey came over here and had to put up - despite shutting up in the other thread.

I digged this up from Hugh Ross's site.

But we only have life on earth - Saying life could adjust elsewhere because it happens on earth --> Is that valid? It's still surviving - on earth.Ofcourse - the possibility of other life makes my argument inductive;So when I say;Life is only on earth, I suppose I could also say "porridge is only on my plate" -- erm, am I refuting myself here? Anyway - I didn't do the math - I only heard the hearsay, - and was asked in another thread to show this - so I did. Good point - but I heard them argue on the program Reasons to believe -- that Mars was just too uninhabitable, and Europa? If it's DNA - you'll know my answer - if it's not, my ass is kicked!Ofcourse - we can only deal with what can be dealt with - and planets that we have discovered are the only ones available - and so far - all planets inidicate hostile turbulent solar systems - big numbers are given to justify the possibility of an "earth-like" planet, but we haven't found one. Nevertheless, I only find good porridge at my house - but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist at yours - so I'm keeping "insane creo mike" in check.

Wow - Quetzal - welcome back! Oh thanks I try my best - and hope I can live up to those comments - I guess everyone tries to be objective as they can - while preaching the truth of bibleGod. Yes - I agree that living organisms are able to adapt to their environment. I guess LAWKI is argued as the "only life".However - I admitt that it's an inductive argument, because it's exactly the same as saying;I have counted 4 billion socksAnd so - there are 4 billion socks in existenceOfcourse - Have I access to all socks (life) - No, I only have access to the socks I've counted. So logically, I admitt it is a speculative topic. - And not deductive.All in all I enjoyed your post and can understand what you are saying. Okay - I understand why you say this - personally, I'm now an open gate at the moment. ofcourse - if there's 4 billion socks - is everyone wearing one sock? Anyhow - I can see that statistics are dubious - but u have to understand, I was dragged over here to defend a statistic, which I atleast tried to do - but in the other thread, no one was expected to defend their statistics. So my conclusion is that statistics can only be so useful, and I suggest my conclusion is reasonable by default. THAT is my conclusion on all of them. Okay - I agree the earth doesn't adapt to life - but I am not saying it does - but rather, it has been fine-tuned for the arrival of life. Yes - I was never sure about that though. You see, by chance it may not be teaming with life - but by design? Anyway - I don't dismiss that the universe is big, and that God might have bigger fish to fry. Okay - you win that point highlighted, because I said " But we only have life on earth - Saying life could adjust elsewhere because it happens on earth --> Is that valid? It's still surviving - on earth. "While life adapting elsewhere based on life adapting on earth is still life adapting on earth - you are corect to point out that life - despite us only knowing it on earth - could survive elsewhere - and be very different in nature. Looking at this entirely logically - with no mike involvement - I guess the difference might be that an atheist might say that we have one example of life, evidenced and known - whereas they cannot find a proof of God. So - quite historically, I'm going to defend atheists - and say that they can validly suggest there is life elsewhere (and I am indifferent) - because they have one absolutely certain - proof of life.BTW - are you atheist or agnostic L? I forget.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-20-2004 08:54 AM

Hi Amlodhi - I know Amlodhi - I amnot accusing you of it. What I am saying is that you started with your statistic - this thing, but I am not against you for mentioning your statistic assertion in message #172 - all I am saying is that I AM the one who has been persistently pursued, when infact you started to assert statistics, and then Dan got on the train - ut why does mike - when he asserts a statistic - have to put up??? Can you see my point? Again - I am not interested in blaming you individually for anything - I just want fair game.From message #172 you said " The point is that, statistically, it appears that we live in an indifferent universe ". You then go on to say how a theistic position; BUT --> mike is saying that even if the universe is indifferent - that doesn't mean God is;A. My position - God is not indifferent.
B. You have claimed that the universe is indifferent, and so God is.You are now saying that we have to explain, but infact arguing position B doesn't refute my actual position - which is A, that God is indifferent,So - I never said that the universe either is/is not indifferent - I preached that Christ is good - and does care (position A).Example;1. Barry says football is fun
2. dudeguy says that football grounds are boringDudeguy says that football must be boring.But the world being indifferent - won't not favour God - Christ said "If the world hates me" - WHAT? The world hate God?Now Christ also cast out apparent indifferent diseases. Maybe the disease is indifferent, but is satan?And so if Christ is not consistent with the "world" and it's indifference (by him casting out worldly diseases) - can you see that it is a reasonable position - when I say that God is not indifferent? I hope you can.Edited out my accusation against sweetie pie Shraff, and replaced it with evil boy Dan. Regards, mike.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 10-20-2004 12:10 PM