Abiogenesis is the Scientific God

I see Leopold did post something, but doubt if he tried to answer my question so I will:

In a 64 bit word machine, even 20,615,673 easily fits as one word. So if to multiply two words takes M cycles you are going to have something on order of 4e14 decimal as the square and I think even that fits in the 64 bit word. (log of 10 base 2 is 3.2 approx so I think, 64 bit holds roughly 64/3.2 = 1e20 in decimal) but product of two of these 4e14decimals will not fit so perhaps to express their fourth powers will take not 2M but 8 M cycles. (just guessing)
Each of the numbers less than 20,615,673 must have been raised to the fourth power with results stored on a tape. So that must be on the order of 16e7M cycles to set up data on tape for addition testing. Now essentially each of these 20,615,673 fourth powers must be tested against the sums of all possible combinations on the left side of the equation as conceivably n^4+m^4+X^4 = Y^4 where n& m <<<X might be true. (Also if this "compute four power data base first and store" approach is used, it is very likely that many more that the needed 20,615,673 numbers were computed and stored, but I neglect this.)

Thus, a very crude attempt to answer by one who know little of this field, is: {16e7M}^4 cycles, or 65536e28M^4 cycles.

Probably some tricks I do not know, and some things I forgot, so lets call it 6e32M^4 cycles, if M=4. (Wild guess by me - please someone who knows tell better one.) Then 6M^4 is on order of 1.5e3 so we need order of 1.5e35 cycles to find the solution given. I have heard of “terra flop machines” so guess that means it can do 1e12 cps. Or we need 150e21 seconds. Now there are 31.5e6 seconds in a year, so that is roughly 5e15 years.

That is longer than age of the universe, so I guess, like life, they just got lucky.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Like leopold, who is confronted with the fact that life now exist and once it did not, I am confronted with the fact a counter demonstration to Euler has been found and yet that is highly improbable by the above, so clearly he does not know anything about abiogenesis and I do not know much about computers.

Anyone know my major mistakes? I think most all know his.

PS even though this is now slightly connected to thread (by comparison to life and age of universe) I think the thread dead or an example of “life going to non-life” so no need to feel bad about trying to convert it into something living and useful again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i want to take this time and thank spuriousmonkey, ophiolite, billy t., and possiblt D. H. for effectively squashing an opposing veiwpoint by ignoring evidence.

i seriously believe that this tactic should weigh heavily against you in any and all of your future arguments.

you can ignore the following all you want but it doesn't change a thing:
"the matter of how life came to be on this planet has not been solved, science has been unable to rule out creationism/ ID, or natural causes."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey! What about me! I thought I had done some effective squashing as well.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe my squashing isn't as effective as I thought.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not exactly sure what your are talking about as do not see leopold's nonsense any more, but suspect he is angry but not much at you. put him on ignore. that may do it. Your quote of him has him speaking of evidence - has he finally given some?

 

just one question before i pass sentence:
do you agree with the stance i've taken in this thread?

lame.
some of the worst debating tactics i've ever seen.
intellectually dishonest.

 

I took you briefly off ignore to see if you did offer any evidence. As I expected, none offered still. Not even an honest complaint against scientist as science has always agreed it is impossible to rule out the IDer, just that no IDer is required to explain abiogensis.

Abiogensis, by natural means is very likely. (Almost 100% guaranteed to have happened in the long history of the Earth since it was lifeless and red hot.) The only thing uncertain is by which means did abiogensis occur. The unnatural way - the IDer as cause - is very lowly rated as possibility as there is no evidence for even the existence of the IDer and that possibility also requires a violation of physics laws (I.e. a miracle) something for which there is also zero evidence. However, the absence of evidence does not make something impossible so it can not be totally rejected despite its low relative probability and need for at least two assumptions with zero supporting evidence.

I will get you back on ignore soon, do not worry or drop my honored position among the others you do not respond to, blame, call names, etc.

 

Oh heavy burden!
Mine was the light
Mine was the morn;
For on a day with no night
Once upon a time I was born.

Born into a world of fear
But being happy,
Just being here.
Now, the curtain is closed;
Night has finally drawn.
And for me,
There'll be
No new dawn.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No leopold, I do not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

hmmmm . . .
i just read your PM and what you said in it and what you said above are two different things.
are you going to make me post the PM you sent me?
forget it, i will not blackmail you like that hercules. i won't post anything.

billy,
eat shit and die.

 

There is nothing to blackmail me about. :bugeye: You may post my PM if you like. I merely stated that the fact that abiogenesis has not been recreated in the lab is not in dispute. It hasn’t and nobody has claimed otherwise. We all know that. What myself and most others in this thread have disagreed with is your misinterpretations of the scientific method, your misinterpretations of the nature of the abiogenesis hypotheses that have been put forward by scientists and your inappropriate dismissal of those hypotheses.

Anyway, I grow weary of the subject. I will permanently bow out of this thread at this point in order to maintain my sanity.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yes, i know.

i'm not into that sort of thing.

this is exactly what i've been saying.

where have i dismissed any hypothesis?
i am aware of scads upon scads of explanations (hypothesis).
but like i have repeatedly said, these hypothesis are not proof.
isn't proof what we are looking for in this thread?

i grow weary of defending my position when i shouldn't have to.
i grow weary of being accused of posting creationist websites.
i grow weary of people telling me to have fun in my beliefs.

 

Then quit , Leopold ............

Creationism is bad for you ...:m:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

unbelievable.

 

Yeah, your side says "nope, don't care about the evidence"...."we just don't care that there's no empirical evidence showing that the genetic information arises from inorganic matter (abiogenesis), we'll just blindly believe it happened some how in some unknown way, nature-did-it, its way better than even considering an intelligent cause"

Let's use 18th century science (abiogenesis) in the 21st century that has no evidence behind it...its so logical..

 

But dude, that's not the case at all. And even if it was, why is it any different than what you're doing right now? You are the pot calling the kettle black, my friend.

You're saying that there's no evidence for Abiogensis, but we make the leap to this "nature-did-it" conclusion...when you do the same thing! There's no evidence for Intelligent Design, but you ignore that just jump to that conclusion! Even if we were guilty of doing everything you say we do, SO ARE YOU.

 

Well ok...but if the universe is eternal then why not GOD?

Its not an argument from ignorance, rather yours is argument from ignorance....its been 50 years man why can't they show the genetic information arising naturally...maybe because it just didn't arise naturally...

This is a typical cop-out, if there's no evidence that nature-did-it, then "the natural cause is just unknown"...

 

The evidence for ID is all the design features we see in cells that cannot arise naturally....what other possible evidence could there be for ID? What else could constitute as evidence of ID?

Its just a logical conclusion....no undirected naturalistic cause + design features = intelligent cause.....take anything that's designed like say the Great Pyramids....it has design features and no undirected naturalistic cause so it had an intelligent cause....take something else like crystals..it has design features but has a naturalistic cause...so it has no intelligent cause...

 

nice try Fraggle, but they are "covered with teflon." Just let them talk to themselves here as I and many others have decided to do. Some people's minds are oblivious to reason, such as you present.

 

Why can't they arise naturally? Because you say so?

An expiry date stamped on all living things, right beside the tag that says, "Designed by God."

Where is the logic in denial?

Strawmen.

 

There are no such features.

Non-sequential appearance of structural innovation. Lack of correlation between genetic and taxonomic relationship. Frequent occurence of complex and unique structures with no taxonomic relationship or precedent, extant or paleontological, in particular species or genera.