Hypocritical Religion

That's correct Box, neither side can answer the question ‘Where does everything come from?’. I don't know we keep going around in circles on the subject.

They are not MY calculations.

Some of the sources used are the following


DNA and Other Designs - by Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.

The RNA World: A Critique - by Dean Kenyon, Ph.D. - biology

LIFE: AN EVIDENCE FOR CREATION - by George T. Javor, Ph.D.

DNA, Design, and the Origin of Life - by Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D.

The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism - by Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D.

Why Evolutionary Algorithms Cannot Generate Specified Complexity - by William A. Dembski, Ph.D.

What Do Ribozyme Engineering Experiments Tell Us About the Origin of Life? - by Dean Kenyon, Ph.D.

Given Enought Time Anything is Possible - Even Evolution - by Dr. David N. Menton

Access Research Network - A premier site on Intelligent Design (ID) science. Excellent current research and academic intelligent design articles --& analysis of evolution-- from Doctors: M. Behe, W. Dembski, P. Johnson, & M. Wells.

Origin of Life: The Left-Handed Problem - by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati


I'm afraid that not all highly-educated individuals agree with you on this.

BTW

I don't base my rejection of abiogenesis on mere calculations although I see absolutely no reason why I should doubt the judgement of these scientists and accept your opinion instead.

Below is an explanation on why belief in abiogenetic evolution is considered by some to be tantamnount to blind faith.


Given Enought Time Anything is Possible - Even Evolution
By David N. Menton


This myth is the ultimate argument of those who attempt to "explain" the origin of the Cosmos and all life by CHANCE and the natural properties of matter and energy. Evolutionists hope that by invoking immense amounts of time, highly improbable events can somehow be made probable. But with this type of argument it is possible to "explain" ANYTHING. We've all heard it said, for example, that "given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, EVENTUALLY one of them is bound to type the sonnets of Shakespeare error free." But this outrageous myth violates the statistical foundation on which all modern science rests.

Statistically controlled experiments are useless if we do not assume that highly improbable events simply do not occur. The probability of any event which has a known number of possible outcomes can be calculated quite easily. The probability of rolling a particular number on a die, for example, is one chance out of six (the total number of possible sides) or 1/6. The probability of getting TWO particular numbers on two successive rolls of the die is 1/6 x 1/6 or 1/36, which is to say you would expect to succeed once in 36 rolls. What then is the probability of randomly selecting the appropriate letters and spaces from a Scrabble set to spell "THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION"? There are 26 different letters and a space in the alphabet (total 27) and there is a total of 23 of these letters and spaces in our sentence. The probability of spelling this sentence without error by blindly drawing and replacing letters from our 27 character set is calculated by multiplying 1/27 x 1/27 x 1/27 .... 23 times. The answer reveals that we would expect to spell this simple sentence correctly by CHANCE approximately ONCE IN 8 HUNDRED MILLION, TRILLION, TRILLION draws! If we drew and replaced letters at the rate of a billion a second we would expect to succeed once in 26 THOUSAND, TRILLION YEARS!


Now the simplest living organism is so vastly more complex than our simple sentence, that we have no way of really calculating its probability. If, however, we consider just one one particular protein of average size (say 500 amino acids) from among the thousands of proteins in a living organism, we can easily calculate the probability of forming it by CHANCE. Proteins are made of a tightly linked chain of amino acids. There are only 20 different amino acids used in the proteins of ALL living organisms and they are arranged in a linear sequence much like the letters of a long paragraph. Assuming an inexhaustible supply of each of the 20 different amino acids, the probability calculation would be 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ... 500 times. The number of possible combinations of the amino acids in this protein is 1 with over 600 zeros after it! Even if we were to begin with the proper mixture of 500 amino acids to make our particular protein, we could never get the correct sequence for them by CHANCE.


Even if the entire universe were packed tight with computers the size of electrons, each trying a billion combinations of our 500 amino acids a second, we could sample only an infinitesimally small fraction of all of the possible combinations in 300 billion years! Even if every medium sized protein molecule that ever existed on earth were ALL DIFFERENT, our vast "fleet" of busy computers could not be expected to come up with the combination of amino acids in ANY ONE OF THEM in a mere 300 billion years! What all this means is that if the whole of evolution were reduced to the question of the probability of forming ANY ONE biologically useful protein of average size, we could safely conclude that evolution would be a VIRTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY by reason of the fact that there would be INSUFFICIENT TIME AND MATTER IN THE UNIVERSE! Now calculate how much faith it takes to believe in evolution.

Given Enough Time Anything is Possible - Even Evolution

The Myth of Abiogenesis

BTW

Appeal to infinite time is unscientific since our universe had a beginning.
Estimated age is 13 to 15 billion years.

George T. Javor, biochemistry
"I am a practicing scientist and a believer in a six-day creation."





Charles B. Thaxton (biographical info) -Creation SuperLibrary
"Creationist"

I just checked two of them and they are author sthat fit your agenda. I think either side can do that equally.

Okay, once again, biochemistry is decidedly NOT chance. Assigning odds is meaningless. But let's play your game anyways.

I don't know why it is assumed that you need 500 amino acid chain. Modern abiogenetic theory supposes that the first proteins were something like 30-40 units long. These would then begin working together, and eventually form into simple organisms.
It can be supposed that the first living things would be similar to the Ghadiri group of self-replicating peptides, or a self replicating hexanucleotide.
Another view is the first self-replicators were groups of catalysts, either protein enzymes or RNA ribozymes, that regenerated themselves as a catalytic cycle. An example is the SunY three subunit self-replicator. These catalytic cycles could be limited in a small pond or lagoon, or be a catalytic complex adsorbed to either clay or lipid material on clay. Given that there are many catalytic sequences in a group of random peptides or polynucleotides it's not unlikely that a small catalytic complex could be formed.

These are not mutually exclusive. Both could have happened.

Lets' assume the Ghadiri group, these self-replicating proteins are 32 amino-acid long chains. Nothing like the 500 units long. This would, by the maths your source has proposed, Starman, have a 1 in 4.29 x 10^40 chance of forming randomly. This is hugely lower than the 1 in 10^600 that your source would have us believe.

Still, that's a HUGE number, and probably quite unlikely. Well let's look at the Ocean size of the Early Earth. This is commonly estimated to be about 10^24 liters. Let's say the concentration of amino acids in this ocean is 10^-6M (moderately dilute on the spectrum of values that it is expected to be). This means we have 10^50 starting chains. This means that we would have 10^31 proteins in under a year. Now, given a million years, there is a good chance that one of these proteins (that are still being made through more time) will be the self replicating one that we are looking for.

But of course, there is more. There are a huge number of other simple proteins that are self replicating that could have started life. We have to take these into account. These increase the odds even more.

As you can see, life is certainly feasible given the size and properties of the early Earth, even using the pessimistic numbers that I have used here.

I can add some scientifically peer reviewed sources for numbers and things, if you would like.

NK, You missed out Dr. Behe. He makes me laugh whenevr someone uses him as a source. He purposefully avoids publishing peer-reviewed work now that he's come to believe in ID, instead aiming at the public (like most creationism is).

Depends, how big exactly is the universe? Does it go on forever? Or does it just suddenly end somewhere and you just step out of it into absolute nothingness?

Wow, Cal, I didn't notice that. Good call! We don't know how big the universe is. How could he possibly make that remark.

Good work my little friend!

thanks
I don't think man will ever know the size of the universe, I think that we will never reach its edge, its expanding constantly (if it isn't infinite, which makes me wonder, can an infinite thing expand? Is there room for something infinite to expand? Is it possible for that "is there room thing" to be valid, mnaybe you cannot contain an infinite objectt......and anyway, what does the edge of the universe look like, if it constantly expanding, the edge of it must look pretty amazing, would there be energy released by the universe expanding its borders? Does it have borders?

Current scientific thinking is that the universe is unbounded. It has no boundaries. There is no concensus on whether it is finite or not.

An infinite thing can expand. A fascinating thing about space is the expansion. There is one fascinating observation:

Whichever way you look, the majority of galaxies are moving away from Earth.
This gives us 2 possible conclusions.

1) The Earth is at the center of the universe and is exactly at the point of the Big Bang.
2) The universe is expanding from every point within itself.

1 is easily ruled out because we assume, in science, that space is homogeneous, it is the same at all points (on the biggest scales). We also assume that humans hold no special place in the universe.

The universe expanding from every point within itself is very interesting, there is a lot more evidence to back it up. An infinite thing can expand like this, as can a finite thing.

The classic way to imagine it is this:

Imagine you have a balloon and you draw dots on it. When you blow up the balloon, the dots get further apart. The dots don't get any bigger, but the space between them does. Now the 2d surface of the balloon is also finite and unbounded. There's no edge to it. In a way the 2d surface of the balloon is like the 3d space that we live in.
There are some flaws to this model but it's enough to give you an idea of what our universe is kind of like.