mihkel4397: Fred Hoyle's calculation of probability of abiogenesis

is training to learn to think critically indoctrination?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I take it you've never opened a chemistry book, let alone looked at the table of elements?One of the heaviest, naturally occuring, elements is Uranium-238. The radioactive isotope responsible for destroying either Nagasaki or Hiroshima (the other bomb had plutonium in it, as I recall)When it decays, one of the potential decay paths leads to lead. Which is a lot heavier than lithium. Li (lithium) has a weight of 5. something. It's got three protons. Lead (Pb) is easily in the fifties, and uranium (U) is in the nineties, proton number wise.Carbon's easy to make. When our sun dies--the core will have a lot of iron. again, Fe (iron) is heavier than lithium, and heavier than carbon.In other words, I call bull on that statement you made.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

okay.well, at least we know one thing--the center, right now, isn't iron. unlike what the phycists(?) thought prior to E = mc squared.thanks for the correction.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

you claimed that there were no natural laws that could allow for the production of carbon. that's where I was calling bull. No one makes uranium--we find it naturally. Now then, how can it be made naturally?well, supernovae.ANDmiller's experiment was in the fifties--after Hoyle proposed how elements such as carbon can be made by naturally occurring processes.
so . . .I think you are putting the cart in front of the horse. This time, it's just that Hoyle's discovery took place after the Miller Urey experiments.And even if Hoyle didn't come up with it, we were beginning to understand the processes of fusion--I think the first fusion bomb came out in the early fifties--like 51.
In fact, without einstiend's E = mc squared, Hoyle wouldn't be able to have even proved his concept.And what does uranium have to do with all this--you made the erroneus claim that carbon can't be made. So I told you that elements more than ten times as heavy can be made naturally. So if those can be made, why not carbon?I still call bull.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

well, apparently carbon IS easy to make.
Our entire core is made of iron--which is harder to make than carbon. (core for earth, that is).And I'm not positive, but I'd say there is more iron in the core of our earth than their is carbon on the surface.and how else to you interpret the state "much less relevant until they explain carbon".and, just so you know--how did God make life?
all abiogenesis means is that life came from from non-life. And seeing as how god made man from dust (which is non life--especially if the dust is soil, which is what seems to be implied by statements like from dust you came, to dust you go (or whatever that cliche is).
As far as I can tell--God made life from non-life, and considering that he is all powerful, why can't, or couldn't he?You have this idea in your head that science is anti-god. you've got the wrong philosophical base for that. science is methodological naturalism. ontological naturalism is the philosophy that says there is no god, period. the former doesn't care either way.so, that means that science is doing this--finding out how the world works, regardless if God is behind the laws and theories or not. science does not have an official position on god. got it? get it? good. now quit whining about the atheistic conspiracy of science and how it tries to stamp out god.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

perhaps you could tell me what sumer wrote in the post you replied to.
he erased it before I could get a chance, and like most of us,
didn't put a reason for the edit.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

wow.good thing he didn't have them in the hundreds--like me, or in the thousands, like you.still, I wonder.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences