Some very spot on posts from Pelican, Bugsy, Pericles, Yabby and others.

Poly,

<<1/ Where? are they.>>

Documented in various places I guess.

I wouldn’t bother looking to Creationist websites to find them though. They’re obviously not going to want you to know about them.

You like YouTube, don’t you? Here’s a video done by a scientist that explains one of the best abiogenesis hypotheses in very simple terms... http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

You can check out this person’s “Made Easy” series at http://au.youtube.com/user/potholer54. His videos (Along with the videos of many other scientists on YouTube) do a great job at debunking Creationism and dispelling the myths put out there by pseudo-scientists in order to create a sense of confusion about these issues.

I do hope you check them out. I've posted many informative links for Creationists here before, but they never look at them. Too hard-hitting I guess.

<<2/ 'Credible'... might just be influenced by specific presuppositions ...mightn't it?>>

Considering the study of abiogenesis is still in it’s infancy, and that we are limited by our technology, the theories/hypotheses are credible so long as they don’t run into irreconcilable problems.

Interesting points from the cynics.. but most are consumed with mocking more than making sense of the topic which... to remind all is about

PROB-A-BILITY.

The monkeys are purely incidental to that goal.

It is NOT (Persistant Pericles) about "I don't get it....there fore God did it" kind of thing.. no no no... 'that' approach is based on us having the only source of information being our powers of observation in the natural world.

Our faith in 'God did it' is based on what we understand to be Revealed Truth, and the persuasive evidence for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. (another topic)

Bugsy makes the same point..

[The major idea that it seems that you cannot get your brain around is that scientists 'faith' is contigent. That is, contingent on the evidence at hand. At any time the story may change as new evidence comes to light.]

No Buggy.. I totally get that.. I've gotten it all along.

Leaving the 'science is religion' tag alone for a moment, let's explore probability again.

Now..Oly says that our solar system is just 5 billion yrs old..based on science.

JUST 5 billion? good grief.. I showed in an earlier post that the probability of a complex (even the most simple) life form coming to be is like TRILLION TRILLION TRILLIONs to 1

Bugsy.. u seem to have a few genetic clues.. can you indicate the following in a step by step manner (for we dumbos' :)

1/ Estimated probability of the "first step" towards a life form.
2/ Estimated probability of the "second" step etc...
3/ Estimated probability of the "third" step etc...
(describe these steps please)

Then.. would it be legitimate scientifically to multipy those probabilties?

If you can provide links.. I'd appreciate it.

Yabby needs another pinch there I see :) *pinch*

u said: "If you, runner, gibo etc were really interested in understanding evolution".

NOTTTTT "evolution".... (a-gain)..but 'PROBABILITY' and ORIGINS... abiogenesis.

FOCUS FOCUS FOCUS ! (see.. u've reduced me to shouting :)

Polycarp you said:
"Well hooray.. you kinda get it.. exactly, it has NOTHING to do with "evolution" just as I said at the begining.. this thread is not about "evolution" it is about 'origins' and probabilities.... grrrrrr

Looking at the "Minimal Genome Project" where they sought to establish just how many genes were needed to sustain life.... the probabilities that such a thing could emerge even over trillions of years.. are so ming bogglingly astronimical that to believe such.. seems to me to require more faith than even the most wild eyed Christians."

Okay Poly I got it now...origins and probabilities - NOT evolution??

I still don't get the essence of what you are arguing. You still have not answered the queries put to you in my first post ie. that of plausibility. You are arguing plausability and perceived impossibilities (in science) but you remain steadfast on the most implausible theory of all - God. Out of interest how did your God evolve? Where did he/she/it come from originally and how was it formed?

Science does not pretend to have all the answers but it is about learning and gaining knowledge or understanding. It is about asking the questions, researching, finding evidence and being willing to change ideas midstream should the evidence lead you in other directions.

Actually Poly, the topic is nonsense, mocking is pretty much all we have left.

I must truthfully say that I cannot answer your "estimated probability" questions, but that is because nobody can. It's a fantasy of the "intelligent design" groups to think that it can at the moment.

We don't yet know what all the parameters are for making the simplest of cells, but one thing is indicative: they were probably not anything like the self contained free-living organisms we see today. To get a feeling of just how simple these early cells may have been, look up the origin of organelles.

Also, there are plenty of proteins that are quite simple. They are called peptides and they can do a myriad of functions. Also, many proteins form a kind of shell around a metal catalytic centre (or domain), and the metal ion does the work of the protein, but the protein maintains specificity of the reaction (i.e. what chemicals it can react with and how fast etc). Without the protein, the metal ions can generally still catalyse the same reactions, just generally fairly slowly because these reactions are fairly unspecific (but still occur). In this way, a lot of the reactions you think that ususally performed by proteins are actually peformed by metallic ions, which are very simple indeed.

Any probability estimate that uses the spontaneous generation of full-length proteins and nucleic acids is based on a fallacy, most biologists would probably tell you that (I say "probably" because many wouldn't even bother with the "question", and some are just insane).

OK Poly.

If you're wanting to talk probabilies, then read the following links. They explain the problems and falsehoods of the "probability" argument used by Creationists...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

It's a fair bit of reading. But I trust that'll clear things up for you.

P.S. If anyone clicks on the YouTube link I provided earlier, please give the video a 5 star rating. Creationists have created a bot that goes around YouTube giving anti-creationist videos 80 1 star ratings. The problem with this is that the lower the rating, the less likely the video will show up in a search.

Now there's some Creationist honesty for you, eh Runner?

A.J. Phillips

'P.S. If anyone clicks on the YouTube link I provided earlier, please give the video a 5 star rating. Creationists have created a bot that goes around YouTube giving anti-creationist videos 80 1 star ratings. The problem with this is that the lower the rating, the less likely the video will show up in a search.

Now there's some Creationist honesty for you, eh Runner?

Sorry Mr Phillips I have no idea what you are talking about. Just answer the simple question of where matter come from instead of getting carried away with some silly little conspiracy theory. Obviously you can't answer that question so stop pretending science has the answers to origins. You look silly defending these dogmas even though I am sure you aren't a fool.