Unpopular Opinions.

Doing bad things is generally more fun than doing good things.

mickrock wrote: »

What facts? There's no evidence whatsoever that life can come from inanimate matter.

The theory is so full of holes that it's not plausible.

And no, a supreme being isn't responsible either.

Well we do come from inanimate matter. Organic matter built from inorganic matter.

I don't like the sun. I prefer cloudy days.

Because of recurring bad experiences I hate a very certain race. My whole family hates this "race" as well and any one who doesn't hate this certain ugly race are just fooling themselves. I'll put this disgusting race in spoiler tags so I don't offend your fragile little minds...

I absolutely despise . Absolute filth.

deisedave wrote: »

Lol if you think blow jobs are over rated you obviously have not met a girl that can do it right, deepthroat is one of the best feelings ever

Actually I had a really great one, but the thing is she never went to town on the dick. Somehow all the area around there can be just as good if it's done right. I hope all you ladies can learn something from this. I know it's ironic a guy called smegmar telling you this.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Not really the principles of organic chemistry deal with molecules that naturally form long chains. The interaction between these molecules means that they can only combine with certain molecules.

"As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^[SIZE=-1]119,879[/SIZE] is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit."

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

mickrock wrote: »

"As Coppedge (1973) notes, even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^[SIZE=-1]119,879[/SIZE] is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form.

At this rate he estimates it would require 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] years on the average to obtain a set of these proteins by naturalistic evolution (1973, pp. 110, 114). The number he obtained is 10^[SIZE=-1]119,831[/SIZE] greater than the current estimate for the age of the earth (4.6 billion years). In other words, this event is outside the range of probability. Natural selection cannot occur until an organism exists and is able to reproduce which requires that the first complex life form first exist as a functioning unit."

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp

I love how everything starts with "by chance" then is followed by meaningless probabilites.

The definition of life is fairly strict such that a virus does not technically fit into this catagory. Prions are only protein. Viroids only RNA. A self replicating system of molecules does not count as life and yet self-polymerizing molecules (so called living molecules) are all around us.

Not everything is understood about how life formed but there is a lots of promising evidence pointing towards abiogenesis.

You quoted Coppedge (1973). A lot has happened since then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

Concerning Dr. Jack Szostak. 2009 Nobel Laurette in medicine for his work on telomerase.

mickrock wrote: »

The theory of abiogenesis is that life came from inanimate matter in a series of steps and that each step happened by chance. It seems reasonably scientific to multiply the estimated probabilities of each step to get an overall probability of life happening.

You seem to have some doubt that life happened purely "by chance". Oops!




So what? There's a gigantic leap from self-replicating molecules to life itself.




It would be truer to say that not very much is understood about how life formed and there isn't much convincing evidence at all.




I love how the description of the video on abiogenesis starts "This has been CONFIRMED in Dr Jack Szostak's LAB".

No it hasn't!

Mickrock whats the alternative your presenting?