Abiogenesis not probable but inevitable, says physicist

a reply to: Astyanax

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

The key word is "if". If only if...

and then there's this...which came first? The process or the material?

If the process (abiogenisis), how did it came to be? Who thought of its mathematical equations so that 'it' knows to...

"start with a random clump of atoms, ...shine light on it for long enough, ....that you get a plant"

And how about the raw material? Where did it came from absent of a process?

If only if...

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Astyanax

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

The key word is "if". If only if...

and then there's this...which came first? The process or the material?

If the process (abiogenisis), how did it came to be? Who thought of its mathematical equations so that 'it' knows to...

"start with a random clump of atoms, ...shine light on it for long enough, ....that you get a plant"

And how about the raw material? Where did it came from absent of a process?

If only if...

Gross oversimplification. That scientist should have known better.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Or lots of other conditions, for that matter?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Astyanax

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

The key word is "if". If only if...

and then there's this...which came first? The process or the material?

If the process (abiogenisis), how did it came to be? Who thought of its mathematical equations so that 'it' knows to...

"start with a random clump of atoms, ...shine light on it for long enough, ....that you get a plant"

And how about the raw material? Where did it came from absent of a process?

If only if...

Gross oversimplification. That scientist should have known better.

No. just merely stating the facts.

but let's do baby steps - how did the atom came into existence without a source?

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Astyanax

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

The key word is "if". If only if...

and then there's this...which came first? The process or the material?

If the process (abiogenisis), how did it came to be? Who thought of its mathematical equations so that 'it' knows to...

"start with a random clump of atoms, ...shine light on it for long enough, ....that you get a plant"

And how about the raw material? Where did it came from absent of a process?

If only if...

Gross oversimplification. That scientist should have known better.

No. just merely stating the facts.

but let's do baby steps - how did the atom came into existence without a source?

yes, gross oversimplification. like if i said "smaller box go boom make bigger box on wheels go vroom" this description doesnt come close to explaining the mechanics of your modern automobile. there is a grain of truth, but the rest is sloppy translation.

as to your question, im sure the experts will let us know as soon as they have a conclusive answer. if we are still around by that time. as for right now, no one on this thread or this website has an actual answer to that question. even you. or perhaps especially you.

a reply to: sweord

Better to just s 'God done it' and leave it there, right?

a reply to: Astyanax

and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.... www.simonsfoundation.org...

hmm...well god did say "let there be light"

from the paper

For the beginnings of a way forward, we should consider a system of fixed particle number N and volume V in contact with a heat bath of inverse temperature β. If we give labels to the microstates of this system

Not much brushed up on my high school maths but how does an experiment starting with an assumption of a closed system with "x fixed particles" work on an open system within the ever expanding universe theory.

Still god may be the oldest being around made from that first primordial particle -

a reply to: Astyanax

MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK claims to have created over 50 different nucleic acids out of hydrogen-sulfide hydrogen-cyanide and uv light.

if one were to ask the creator, who created the creator, i imagine the answer would be: abiogenesis
which would lead to the question, where did the initial energy of the universe that allows for abiogenesis come from?

a reply to: Astyanax

Very interesting, indeed.

I'm noting even resembling knowledgeable enough to give an informed opinion...I'll have to read it most carefully.

It is an interesting thought process, though...

Nice find.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Astyanax

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

The key word is "if". If only if...

and then there's this...which came first? The process or the material?

If the process (abiogenisis), how did it came to be? Who thought of its mathematical equations so that 'it' knows to...

"start with a random clump of atoms, ...shine light on it for long enough, ....that you get a plant"

And how about the raw material? Where did it came from absent of a process?

If only if...

Gross oversimplification. That scientist should have known better.

No. just merely stating the facts.

but let's do baby steps - how did the atom came into existence without a source?

yes, gross oversimplification. like if i said "smaller box go boom make bigger box on wheels go vroom" this description doesnt come close to explaining the mechanics of your modern automobile. there is a grain of truth, but the rest is sloppy translation.

as to your question, im sure the experts will let us know as soon as they have a conclusive answer. if we are still around by that time. as for right now, no one on this thread or this website has an actual answer to that question. even you. or perhaps especially you.

and yet you're already convinced that nothing created it.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Astyanax

Well, then. How will creationists respond if abiogenesis is shown to be an inevitable result of the nature of matter itself?

The key word is "if". If only if...

and then there's this...which came first? The process or the material?

If the process (abiogenisis), how did it came to be? Who thought of its mathematical equations so that 'it' knows to...

"start with a random clump of atoms, ...shine light on it for long enough, ....that you get a plant"

And how about the raw material? Where did it came from absent of a process?

If only if...

Gross oversimplification. That scientist should have known better.

No. just merely stating the facts.

but let's do baby steps - how did the atom came into existence without a source?

yes, gross oversimplification. like if i said "smaller box go boom make bigger box on wheels go vroom" this description doesnt come close to explaining the mechanics of your modern automobile. there is a grain of truth, but the rest is sloppy translation.

as to your question, im sure the experts will let us know as soon as they have a conclusive answer. if we are still around by that time. as for right now, no one on this thread or this website has an actual answer to that question. even you. or perhaps especially you.

and yet you're already convinced that nothing created it.

Doesn't matter to me.

a reply to: Astyanax

Jeremy England's proposal is just the old 'by necessity' argument which has already been repudiated by the very same people who proposed it first. I know many people here don't like the man in the video below and don't want to think too long about a word he's saying, but that doesn't mean Jeremy England's philosophy/idea hasn't been repudiated before he changed it slightly and re-proposed it in the slighly modified form. It's wishful thinking at its finest based on no real logical or reasonable evidence. Beguiling a bit with some fancy mathematics and language+mental juggling and hope people's desire to have their ears tickled is stronger than their ability to recognize nonsense/contradictions/paradoxes or flaws in the way of thinking and what to consider as evidence.
For those who do care, here's why a few people on ATS don't take this thread and Jeremy England's preposterous claims seriously:

Of course you can do all sorts of demonstrations in this thread of 2 Timothy 4:3,4, Col. 2:8, Proverbs 14:15, Romans 16:18, 2 Peter 2:3 and 2 Timothy 3:1-4 if you prefer, I won't stop you.

So basically life just zaps itself into existence, if a physicist says so its gotta be true roflmao