No, it wouldn't. In a sea of reactions, where trillions take place every second, the life-span of the reaction is irrelevant. One reaction may proceed into organization in the span of a heartbeat, or the reaction may proceed after a longer period. It really doesn't make a difference, as the number of occurrences is so vast that it's hard to comprehend them.
Roll a million dice a million times, and see what you get, no matter how fast you roll them.
To talk about 1 and 2% amino acids, and ignore, as you would rather call, "reproduction", and totally keep from your mind that it is far more logical that life as we know it is a "reproduction" of another life is quite silly to me. Is what you are saying interesting, absolutely, and I am sorry what I presented is no where near as elegant, but it is more likely and more logical.
Not logical J. INTUITIVE. You have selected the more intuitive choice. That is not the same as logical.
Secondly, we cannot say that it is "more likely". Why? Because to make it work you have to invoke a deity who is by definition infinitely more complex than the thing he or she is meant to be explaining. On what basis would we presume to rank the probability of such a thing?
Actually I just wanted to be precise, if we had observed life to come from nonliving matter, then I would need to recant my statements on my videos. Other videos have since stated the same thing, and been shown to be a lie.
Illusion was not about discrediting atheistic behavior, but a notice of common logical insanity that was always used in defense of abiogenesis.
Now you do realize your early earth conditions are purely hypothetical right? Just making sure. Interesting, yes.
What, the same conditions that you tried to imply would interfere with sugar formation in the comments on your video? Was that interference "hypothetical" too?
When you say "early Earth" J, I am always curious as to how long you think it was between the Earth forming and life beginning (in the naturalistic view, of course - I wouldn't expect you to share the beliefs since you have stated you are a creationist!)
8:15 organize into reproducing units. Wouldn't that make them reproducing units if they had the ability to organize and become reproducing units.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
No, it wouldn't. In a sea of reactions, where trillions take place every second, the life-span of the reaction is irrelevant. One reaction may proceed into organization in the span of a heartbeat, or the reaction may proceed after a longer period. It really doesn't make a difference, as the number of occurrences is so vast that it's hard to comprehend them.
Roll a million dice a million times, and see what you get, no matter how fast you roll them.
Nix ~
nixonfanatic 2 years ago
I only showed a more logical choice.
To talk about 1 and 2% amino acids, and ignore, as you would rather call, "reproduction", and totally keep from your mind that it is far more logical that life as we know it is a "reproduction" of another life is quite silly to me. Is what you are saying interesting, absolutely, and I am sorry what I presented is no where near as elegant, but it is more likely and more logical.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
Not logical J. INTUITIVE. You have selected the more intuitive choice. That is not the same as logical.
Secondly, we cannot say that it is "more likely". Why? Because to make it work you have to invoke a deity who is by definition infinitely more complex than the thing he or she is meant to be explaining. On what basis would we presume to rank the probability of such a thing?
starfedrogue 2 years ago
Actually I just wanted to be precise, if we had observed life to come from nonliving matter, then I would need to recant my statements on my videos. Other videos have since stated the same thing, and been shown to be a lie.
Illusion was not about discrediting atheistic behavior, but a notice of common logical insanity that was always used in defense of abiogenesis.
Now you do realize your early earth conditions are purely hypothetical right? Just making sure. Interesting, yes.
jazzyhap 2 years ago
What, the same conditions that you tried to imply would interfere with sugar formation in the comments on your video? Was that interference "hypothetical" too?
When you say "early Earth" J, I am always curious as to how long you think it was between the Earth forming and life beginning (in the naturalistic view, of course - I wouldn't expect you to share the beliefs since you have stated you are a creationist!)
starfedrogue 2 years ago