The issue of chance... (Evolution)

by David Turell , Sunday, May 31, 2009, 20:11 (5453 days ago) @ Matt S.

When you take into consideration that the controller of spontaneity is heat, it seems less and less like the notion of chance. In fact, most chemists would tell you that the reaction will be inevitable if these basic characteristics are met. - This comment deserves more explanation. Is Matt S discussing inorganic or organic chemisty? They are light-years apart in their characteristics. He is generally correct about inorganic chemistry. Put some inorganic atoms or molecules together and heat and there will usually be reactions and combinations, with simple inorganic catalysts present, or perhaps not present. It is a completely different story in organic chemistry which requires
enzymes (organic catalysts) for generally all reactions. One can apply heat to two organic molecules for millions of years without enzymes and not get a yield of anything. That is why the jump from inorganic to organic chemistry is so difficult. First make the right organic molecules from inorganic, and then get reactions that move swiftly.
 
> So, I think that the author needs to more clearly define what it is he is attacking when he refers to the atheist position being about "chance created everything" because I feel it is a very gross oversimplification of the position. - Not oversimplified at all. Matt S must realize that chance and probability or two sides of the same coin. And probability can be calculated. Spontineity is fine if everything needed is in place, including heat, and in Matt S' view this can easily happen spontaneously. I doubt it to an enormous negative power of 10 to the minus 150th.