Creation "Science" And The Flood of Noah.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I an not sure I really buy that argument - ie that life could form multiple times but one of the 'Adams' got a head start so it could out-compete the others - because there are always places on Earth were competition is minimal. And there are always niches to fill. It is just like why there are som many species on Earth - because there are so many roles to play. But maybe....

First of all life most likely were started in shallow seas, IIRC the seas had a much lower salinity back then. Since the oceans were (still are) connected life could spread around easily. Specialisation came later.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
UR: it does matter what the probabilities are. Unless you invoke an anthropic principle (ie without successful creation of life on Earth we wouldn't be here to argue the point) we really have to have a non-neglible probability of life forming by random means, or explain why this planet is so different that life would form here.

I don't know how big the probability of "life forming by random means" is. If we consider life as something that can self-replicate, the probability doesn't seem so low.

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
It is just like throwing a pin in the air. Imagine it lands on the pointy end and balances perfectly. This is statistically possibe but has vanishingly small probability, so if it happens you can be pretty sure there is some other underlying reason...

That's what the fallacious creationist argument is. First they invent some bollocks probability, then asserted this probability to occur naturally, so there has to be a creator.

First of all this probability calculation is a risky business. Probability itself is not wrong, but the underlying assumption can be. Most creationist models try to attempt to calculate the probability of a fully formed cell spontaneously formed by random chance. This is the first thing that's wrong; lifeforms can be a lot simpler.

Secondly, there really was a lot of time and a lot of sites for chemical reactions. Consider that over 70% of the earth's surface is covered with water. Suppose that the life forming events can take place in the first 1m of water. That's an astronomical amount of sites for such reactions.

[Logical Realist]

Evolution Defended

The problem with a lot of creationists is that they make a purely negative argument. They assume that if evolution is disproven that the book of Genesis now stands as fact. That is simply not the case to quote someone informed on the subject:

" Are you ready to disprove the Algonquin creation myth, the Shinto creation myth, the Yoruba creation myth, the Mayan creation myth, the Pawnee, Inuit, Mogollon, Hindu, and Zoroastrian creation myths, as well as other scientific hypothesis such as Special Creationism, Lamarckism, Neo-Lamarckism, Process Structuralism, Saltationism, and rand knows how many more ideas ? "


Clearly a positive case must be made for the Christian creation myth as well as negative arguments. This is not even attempted by creationists though as such proof does not exist. All that creationists have ever had are hoaxes and mythology (dinosaur foot prints with a man's in Texas, sightings of the lockness monster,myths of dragons in the middle ages, and reports made by pygmies in Africa about giant lizards hiding in the jungle).


The idea that there was aver a world wide flood is disconfirmed by the fact that there isn't enough water on earth for a world wide flood which would cover the tallest mountains. This is also disconfirmed by the fact that all the fish would be wiped out in a world wide flood(As it would screw up the salinity of the water, and fish are very sensitive to that).

The best argument I've seen for the Genesis Flood here is that people share floodmyths. This can easily be explained by the fact that most ancient people lived near water, such a explanation is preferable as it is more in line with what we know of geology. In any case though these stories are usually not very similar except on the detail of the flood element. It should also be kept in mind that these are all myths too, and hence show how desperate creationists are.

If evolutionists used the Greek myth of random animals appearing all at once and dying out until those less able remained, as evidence for evolution; you bet the creationists would point to how silly it is. And I wouldn't blame them for doing so.

If creationists want a case they have to do more than cling to pathetic "girly man" pieces of evidence like "similar mythology" and actually use something more solid like geology.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
First of all life most likely were started in shallow seas, IIRC the seas had a much lower salinity back then. Since the oceans were (still are) connected life could spread around easily. Specialisation came later.
.......
I don't know how big the probability of "life forming by random means" is. If we consider life as something that can self-replicate, the probability doesn't seem so low.

But this is all speculation. Is there any hard direct evidence that it was this way? Do we know, for example, that life started in shallow water? Do we know that the probability of creating life by random means is high enough?

What is to prevent, for example, a micro-organism having arrived on Earth inside an asteroid?

[Jack the Bodiless]

What is to prevent, for example, a micro-organism having arrived on Earth inside an asteroid?

How would it get there? Even if all the chemicals were present, there wouldn't be liquid water in there for long.

Unless life evolved on Mars during its watery era and came to Earth in a meteorite from there. That's plausible, but I doubt if Mars was any better than Earth as a site for life to appear, so Earth is still the more likely site.

[connorkimbro]

Oh boy, did this thread rage out of control or what?

Quite.

[faded glory]

Oh Boy...good going conner Looks like this thread is in competition with the finish one

[Seeker]

Jack, check the news!

"Even if all the chemicals were present, there wouldn't be liquid water in there for long"

With the discovery of a hydrogen-based ecology 600 feet under the state of Idaho (a 'new' type of methanogen) the two 'pre-requisites' for life--sunlight and liquid water--have been dethroned.

It has recently been discovered that other ecologies are possible. I think space.com has the article. They go on to explain the obvious panspermia implications.

[Tolls]

Seeker:
Oooh...must look at that.
Sunlight hasn't been a pre-requisite for a while now...just a source of energy, but liquid water losing its place is interesting.

Maybe that's where we've been going wrong...

[Urban Ranger]

Seeker,

Got any links?

[Tolls]

Ah...liquid water doesn't seem to have been removed according to the article:

""If hydrogen is indeed present on Mars in association with liquid water, the kind of metabolism we describe ... may occur on Mars," Chapelle said."

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/life_methane_020116.html

These are just archaea, but the exciting thing is that it seems to be the first eco-system we've found based entirely on them...but water seems to still be a requirement.

[Urban Ranger]

Tolls,

Thanks.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I don't see how life is likely to appear without a liquid medium of some sort for the molecules to move around in and generally get organized.

And liquids don't last long in a vacuum, which would seem to limit life to oceans or liquid interiors of bodies of significant size. Hence, no panspermia except the "chunks knocked off planets" variety.

And as the entire Universe is only about three times the age of the Earth, there has only been a limited amount of time for chunks of life-bearing planets to accumulate in interstellar space. Especially as solid planets can't form until enough heavy elements have been produced in supernovae, further shortening the time available.

[Seeker]

Sorry. Am a boobus maximus. The hydrogen thing is interesting though.

Love the quote!

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Especially as solid planets can't form until enough heavy elements have been produced in supernovae, further shortening the time available.

They are not produced in Supernovae - they are produced in Stars. Supernovae just spread them around (when stars go BOOM!).

[Dauphin]

When Aligators attack!

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

when stars go BOOM!.

Sounds like a good name for a TV show.