The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

[muhammad_isa]

Well, we all are related to the other primates, so no shame there.

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Where did the universe come from?

We don't know

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

Big bang theory concerns the development of the universe

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect.

No. Causality is a temporal phenomenon. It is dependend on temporal conditions. These exist in the universe. Remove the universe = remove temporal conditions = remove causality.

It also violates every law of conservation too.

No. The total energy of the universe could be zero. Negative and positive phenomenon cancel eachother out.

If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

There is no "before" time. As to what the origins of the universe / bag bang is, we don't know. A nobel awaits the one who finds out.

If that thing always, existed that violates the law of increasing entropy.

No. Always = a span of time. All of time, to be exact.
Go back in history. Pick any point in time. Did the universe exist then? Answer = yes.
Hence: the universe has always existed.

If that thing has not always existed what was there before the thing that was prior our universe to come into being?

There is no "before" time. Like there is no "north" of north.
It's not even correct to say there is "nothing" north of north. North of north is not a thing. It's an absurdity.

There is nothing there, because there simply is no "there" there.

Please continue this until you get something that has always been.

Is that were you will inject your god of the gaps?
Anyhow, as we have just seen: the universe has always existed.
If you don't agree, then please point me to any point in time when the universe didn't exist.

And then that will violate the law of increasing entropy.

No.

Where did the laws of nature come from?

The are our descriptive abstractions of how things work.

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?
Where did all energy come from?
Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?
Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?
Where did the laws of nature come from?
Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?
Where did all energy come from?
Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?
Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?

You repeated a few questions there.
I'll just say "i don't know". I'm sure physicists can provide answers to at least some of these.

I'll just go with "i don't know", since I don't.

You can now go ahead and use your combo of argument from ignorance, argument from awe, argument from complexity, special pleading, assumed conclusion and god-of-the-gaps argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have no logic just blind hate of God I guess.

There you go. Someone doesn't agree with my fantastical faith based claims... it must be for the reason that they "hate god". Yep!

This shows your emotional investment in these claims. It clouds your judgement.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why?

When they are found, they are no longer "missing".

They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?

They do. Being willfully ignorant doesn't alter reality

There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?

There shouldn't and I explained multiple times already why not.
Willfully ignorant again.

The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling.

They aren't and that also has already been addressed.
Once again willfully ignorant.

Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1.

I estimate the odds of you not being able to explain the core mechanism of evolution in 2-3 sentences, as being 1 in 1.

The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that.

Funny.
When we go by actual evolution, instead of the silly strawman in your head, then the odds of NOT finding "partially developed organs and functions" is in fact 1 in 1, if evolution is correct.

I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.

I estimate the odds of you having pulled that probability out of your behind at 1 in 1.

Of course, the odds against all the ordered sequences in all the DNA, RNA, and proteins in all creatures that ever lived is more than 10^(10^43) to 1.

Another statement exposing your extreme (willful) ignorance on the topic.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There is no "before" time..

No .. not if you define it as starting at the big-bang.

Anyhow, as we have just seen: the universe has always existed..

We have seen no such thing!

If you don't agree, then please point me to any point in time when the universe didn't exist..

A point in time?
If you define time as starting at the big-bang, then how can one "point" at some time outside
of the universe?

I'm sure physicists can provide answers to at least some of these..

A physicist deals with observations in the universe, and not externally to it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No .. not if you define it as starting at the big-bang.



We have seen no such thing!


A point in time?
If you define time as starting at the big-bang, then how can one "point" at some time outside
of the universe?


A physicist deals with observations in the universe, and not externally to it.

Nope, not by definition. By fact. Your opening sentence shows that you were unable to follow that line of thought.

And yes, we can see the first visible result of the BB. How could not know q

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. not if you define it as starting at the big-bang.

It's not what I "defined". It's what the math says.

We have seen no such thing!

Pick any point in time. Did the universe exist then?
Can you show me a point in time when the universe did not exist?
I say you can't because time is an inherent part of the space-time continuum.
The continuum (the universe) existed whenever time existed.

And always = all of time.

Point out where you disagree and explain why.

A point in time?
If you define time as starting at the big-bang, then how can one "point" at some time outside
of the universe?

Nobody is "defining" anything.
This is what the math says, the math that models the universe. Relativity.

Do you think it is wrong? Why?

A physicist deals with observations in the universe, and not externally to it.

We don't even know if the concept of "externally to the universe" even makes any sense to begin with.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nope, not by definition. By fact..

No .. you are obviously unaware of how science works.
We have to make basic definitions, in order to describe the relationship
between other quantities .. such as force and energy, which are described in terms of
space and time.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not what I "defined". It's what the math says..

See my last post..

Nobody is "defining" anything.
This is what the math says, the math that models the universe. Relativity.

Again, see my last post.
Time and space have to be defined .. the whole of physics collapses without a foundation.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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.

That is impossible to have happened by random chance.
Therefore, God created all things.
A simple elegant proof.
Assume no God. Show the contradiction. Therefore, God exists.
The proof that the Bible is the true word of God is also easy.

The atheists have been deceived into believing that the first creature could come into existence by random chance.
Never has been observed. Simple analysis shows it is impossible. There is no record that it ever did.
So, the evolutionist has the burden of proof.

Possibility has to be demonstrated. You have not done that, this just seems impossible to you.

Also, this atheist does not know how life began, neither does science, but we do know it had to have a start somehow.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Possibility has to be demonstrated. You have not done that, this just seems impossible to you.

Also, this atheist does not know how life began, neither does science, but we do know it had to have a start somehow.

Yea, God created all things, living and non-living.

 

[F1fan]

Yea, God created all things, living and non-living.

Right, the cancers that kill little children. Flesh eating bacteria that kill humans. Malaria and Zeka virus that kills many humans.

How about earthquakes that destroy buildings full of citizens? Floods that wipe out communities? Hurricanes and tornados that devastate towns?

Why is this God's will? Defend it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No .. you are obviously unaware of how science works.
We have to make basic definitions, in order to describe the relationship
between other quantities .. such as force and energy, which are described in terms of
space and time.

Yes, definitions are made, but that does not justify your conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See my last post..


Again, see my last post.
Time and space have to be defined .. the whole of physics collapses without a foundation.

And you are just trying to play silly word games. That is not very convincing.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Yea, God created all things, living and non-living.

Then give good evidence for it instead of just "I don't think it could have happened".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then give good evidence for it instead of just "I don't think it could have happened".

I gave 2 irrefutable proofs already.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I gave 2 irrefutable proofs already.

Can you link to them?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave 2 irrefutable proofs already.

No, you didn't. Everyone and their pet dog refuted that nonsense. You even tacitly admitted that I refuted the induction argument when you ran away several times.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..you are just trying to play silly word games..

No .. you are basing your conclusions (that time begins at the big-bang),
on physics, which makes assumed definitions of space and time.

It is a circular argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No .. you are basing your conclusions (that time begins at the big-bang),
on physics, which makes assumed definitions of space and time.

It is a circular argument.

Nope. Can you debate seriously? You appear to be using improper use of the verb "assume".

 

[muhammad_isa]

You appear to be using improper use of the verb "assume".

No ..

Defining time in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.
...
In physics, time is used to define other quantities, such as velocity, so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.

Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads". This operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event constitutes one standard unit, such as the second, is useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life.

The operational definition of time does not address the fundamental nature of time. Investigations into the relationship between space and time led physicists to define the spacetime continuum, where every event is assigned four numbers representing its time and position (the event's coordinates).
Time - Wikipedia