SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
God created all things of course and God also brought a worldwide flood.
And God made Satan. And Satan deceives all evolutionists.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
And God made Satan. And Satan deceives all evolutionists.
According to your bad interpretation of ancient myths. Where is your science?
Thank you for your confession, but we aren't fooled.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I confess that you are very deceiving and deceived.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, that is all that you have. Thank you for posting us a synopsis instead of putting use through the pain of seeing you fail again.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are very close to breaking the rules of the forum here. They tend to frown on people that call others a liar. Even if one can show that someone else is lying they do not like it. And if the person does not appear to be lying at all and the person making the accusation cannot support it, that can be trouble.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I have only rejected you accusations directed at me which called me a liar.
Back to the topic at hand.
For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.
And of course I did not take into account the almost 100 million other atoms of specific elements in specific bonds with other elements located at specific positions in 3D space. And all this would have to be in place in very close proximity almost simultaneously. It s still impossible. And of course the poor creature does not live long and has no descendants.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That has already been refuted.
You got your figures from an example of modern day life. There is no good reason to believe that the first life would have to be anywhere near as complex. That makes your argument a strawman argument.
Please note, I did not just shout "Strawman!!" and run away. I explained to you why you were wrong. Do you have any questions?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What exactly did you disagree with?
Not going to change much of anything and remember I was extremely generous to a fault.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Try asking the question again without the falsehood. I will not answer questions with what appear to be lies within them.
And I was quiet clear why your argument failed. Perhaps you should tell me what part you did not understand.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Why the "falsehood" comment?
For a specific sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 with handedness) the odds against just the code is 10^160,000 to 1. That is 1 followed by 160,000 zeros. That is almost 100 pages to type out. With 10% of the combinations being possible (probably lower) the odds drop quite a bit to 10^159,999 to 1. So that is still almost 100 pages to type out with the removal of 1 zero.
What part do you disagree with?
Suppose that you had never seen a modern cell phone or knew of its existence. You find such a device. An examination of its incredible uses and how intricately it was made would prove the existence of the intelligent makers of that phone. Now consider a large modern city. There are very many cell phones in it and a huge host of other things and activities that make that city and its inhabitants function. An analysis of that city proves the existence of the intelligent beings that made, run, and function in that city. This is even more sure than just the cell phone. Now look at all of civilization. It consists of very many cell phones, many cities, and many other things. An analysis of that civilization proves the existence of the intelligent beings that made that civilization. This is even more sure than in the city example. Finally look at all living things in the world. The intricacies of living things (DNA, RNA, proteins, enzymes, organs, reproduction, the interconnected food chain etc) and their irreducible mutual complexity is way beyond anything that man has made and by an enormous amount. All people have done so far is try to understand how living things work and even now are just scratching the surface. Thus, an examination of all living things and how they interact with the rest of the creation proves the existence of Almighty God the Creator of all things. And this surety is way beyond than even the civilization example. So, here is yet another irrefutable proof that God Almighty, the Creator exists and the He created all things.
What part of that do you disagree with?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This: " I was extremely generous to a fault." was a falsehood.
And you have already lost. This is a figure that you cannot justify. We went over this. You based this on the smallest modern life that you could find. Why did you assume that life could not be simpler? I know that you do not understand this but even the simplest of modern life has a 3.7 billion year of evolutionary history or more. A lot of complexity would have been added over that time.
That is all nonsense because you are comparing known manufactured objects to natural objects. You are assuming that there was a designer for natural life. And your statement about DNA and RNA being "intricate" is false too. They are rather simple. You do not seem to understand that a lot of DNA or RNA can lead to a lot of intricacy. That does not make DNA and RNA themselves intricate.
You also in at least one version of your argument assumed "irreducible complexity". Nothing has ever been demonstrated to be irreducibly complex. Behe, the author of the concept claimed that various traits were irreducibly complex, but he never came close to proving it. And in every case since then his claims have been shown to be wrong since the examples were not irreducibly complex.
Do you understand the concept of a false premise?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Do you?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Clearly better than you do since you used them in your "proofs".
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Please attempt to refute.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I already have. We are now discussing why your argument failed. Please try to keep up.
Okay, you seem to think that you know what a premise is. You can use a valid source (which means not a dictionary or a creationist source) if you use a source you do need to link it:
What is a premise?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Why can you not refute my proofs?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have. It is not my fault if you do not understand the refutations.
Why are you running away from that discussion?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I am ready to help. You need lots of help
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Please do not break the Ninth Commandment. I am trying to be serious here.
Let's get back to your lack of understanding of the concept of logic.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Again false accusation by you. Quit it,
If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.
If it was RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.