Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Defend it from what? Arguments that are only logical fallacies only need to be laughed at.Defend your theory . You will not because you can not.
what was the first living creature and what features did it have?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Defend it from what? Arguments that are only logical fallacies only need to be laughed at.Defend your theory . You will not because you can not.
what was the first living creature and what features did it have?
So you cannot defend your religion.Defend it from what? Arguments that are only logical fallacies only need to be laughed at.
I don't have a religion. That is your flaw.So you cannot defend your religion.
Of course it is relevant. I would not have posted it if it was not,
Yet another baseless assertion.Behold the glory of God's creation.
Figure 6-89, Protein aggregates that cause human disease - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf
Are you referring to the scientific NCBI article?
Yet another baseless assertion.
He's referring to your claim. Not to your quote mineAre you referring to the scientific NCBI article?
Thanks for clarifying. So you have no objections to the NCBI article. Then how do you explain what the article talks about.He's referring to your claim. Not to your quote mine
Thanks for clarifying. So you have no objections to the NCBI article. Then how do you explain what the article talks about.
Start at the beginning.
Nothing begat the thing that caused the Big Bing.
The thing that caused the Big Bang begat the Big Bang.
The Big Bang begat the universe, all matter, all forces, all energy, time, the finely tuned and orderly laws of nature, elements, chemicals, etc.
Poorly worded but that does appear to be the case.The chemicals begat the first living creature.
Now work up to all living things and explain how we get to all the things that these articles and videos are describing with as many begettings as you need for your proof..
Again, there is no need when there are multiple possible pathways. We may not ever know the exact path taken. That does not mean that it did not happen.Please be very very specific with all the details,
The following is not possible with evolution even with billions of years.
They prove that evolution and billions of years are false.Dude .... quite posting links that do not support your claim .... and don't post links without citing something from that link that does support claim .. so should someone be silly enough to go on one of your wild goose chases... they know what they are looking for.
You have absolutely no idea what is possible -- and what is not -- because you have absolutely no idea what the assumptions in your calculation are. What are the assumptions in the calculation -- 5th time this has been asked -- do you not understand English ?
I asked you specifically if Godly intervention is considered part of nature in your calculation and you failed to respond to the question -- instead respond with more "fake facts" .. unable to even state what you think is not possible with evolution ?! "The following" ?? .. Good Grief
Your foundation is based on fake facts , naked claims, deflection and deception Brother SBTL .. just like those who are "Saved by Lord Satan and Lord Marty"
Now listen .. and listen good ! If you don't know what the assumptions are in the calculation .. then you have absolutely no idea what is possible and what is not with evolution.
Just basic probably and statistics, biology, chemistry and logic.Dude .... quite posting links that do not support your claim .... and don't post links without citing something from that link that does support claim .. so should someone be silly enough to go on one of your wild goose chases... they know what they are looking for.
You have absolutely no idea what is possible -- and what is not -- because you have absolutely no idea what the assumptions in your calculation are. What are the assumptions in the calculation -- 5th time this has been asked -- do you not understand English ?
I asked you specifically if Godly intervention is considered part of nature in your calculation and you failed to respond to the question -- instead respond with more "fake facts" .. unable to even state what you think is not possible with evolution ?! "The following" ?? .. Good Grief
Your foundation is based on fake facts , naked claims, deflection and deception Brother SBTL .. just like those who are "Saved by Lord Satan and Lord Marty"
Now listen .. and listen good ! If you don't know what the assumptions are in the calculation .. then you have absolutely no idea what is possible and what is not with evolution.
They prove that evolution and billions of years are false.
Just basic probably and statistics, biology, chemistry and logic.
The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.
It would have to have had at least 100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence. This is extremely generous. The smallest free-living thing has over 1,000,000 base pairs. I also have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.
The odds against a sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 counting handedness) coming to be by random chance is (10 to the 160,000 power) to 1. That could never have happened anywhere in the universe over the supposed 13.7 billion years of its existence. It actually is impossible because no concentration of that amount of amino acids would happen by random chance. There are other factors that make it impossible. It would be a miracle.
And that is just to get to the first living thing. There would have to at least 1 trillion other miracles to produce all the living creatures by evolution. That would be about 70 miracles for each of the supposed 13.7 billion years.
How? Just claiming that they do is not good enough. You refute yourself when you cannot answer reasonable questions.They prove that evolution and billions of years are false.
Just basic probably and statistics, biology, chemistry and logic.
The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.
It would have to have had at least 100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence. This is extremely generous. The smallest free-living thing has over 1,000,000 base pairs. I also have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.
Well of course if one constructs a strawman, another logical fallacy by the way, one can make it look as if an event is nigh near impossible. Too bad that you got your basic "facts" wrong.The odds against a sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 counting handedness) coming to be by random chance is (10 to the 160,000 power) to 1. That could never have happened anywhere in the universe over the supposed 13.7 billion years of its existence. It actually is impossible because no concentration of that amount of amino acids would happen by random chance. There are other factors that make it impossible. It would be a miracle.
And that is just to get to the first living thing. There would have to at least 1 trillion other miracles to produce all the living creatures by evolution. That would be about 70 miracles for each of the supposed 13.7 billion years.
Thanks for clarifying. So you have no objections to the NCBI article.
Then how do you explain what the article talks about.
Start at the beginning.
No, the book is about cell biology. It's not about big bang cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, etc.Nothing begat the thing that caused the Big Bing.
The thing that caused the Big Bang begat the Big Bang.
The Big Bang begat the universe, all matter, all forces, all energy, time, the finely tuned and orderly laws of nature, elements, chemicals, etc.
The chemicals begat the first living creature.
Now work up to all living things and explain how we get to all the things that these articles and videos are describing with as many begettings as you need for your proof..
Please be very very specific with all the details,
Nothing begat the thing that caused the Big Bing.
Imagine you were a vampire no where near the Middle East and have never even heard of Jesus, but the day after He dies, you gotta figure out why all of a sudden lower case t's started hurting.Defend your theory . You will not because you can not.
what was the first living creature and what features did it have?
So no real answersWhen you start off with a false premise ... underlying one's foundation - the rest of the building don't stand up too good.
Who is this Nothing person that begat the thing that caused the Big Bangy ? har har har
How you know what begat what in the universe ... nobody told you about the Primordial one .. the "Uncreated" it don't exist in that Jewish book .. or should we say .. least not by the Name YHWH.. the Uncreated one might sneak in an appearance from time to time but how would you recognize her ? Ye know naught of the womb from whence creation is sprung.
So no real answers
Those were real answers. Your argument had false premises in it. I was explaining that to you a long long time ago when you ran away.So no real answers
Your premise and reasoning are false.Certainly none coming from you.. despite your best attempts. The smart player knows there is no answer of which one can be certain ... some things we simply don't know for certain ..and what happened prior to the Big Bang is one of them .. if the Supreme one is YHWH is another .. and what the role of the Supreme one in creation is another.
The decepticon tries to pretend he knows the answer the unknowable .. deceiving himself and trying to project this deception onto others around him. Did you have trouble understanding the question Friend ?
You were told "When you start off with a false premise ... underlying one's foundation - the rest of the building don't stand up too good.
You were asked "Who is this Nothing person that begat the thing that caused the Big Bang!"
What is his premise? Why is his reasoning false?Your premise and reasoning are false.