• 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!

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

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
McBell said:
What about it?
Click to expand...
He is trying to figure out how large the first living cell was. What he does not realize is that the first living cell was probably much much larger than modern cells. Of course a lot is going to be how one defines "life". Life itself was almost certainly an emergent property. In other words there technically could never be a "first living cell" just as there could not be a "first man". There is still a huge debate as to what qualifies as being "alive" or not.

Cells on the other hand, at least in the prebiotic sense, are still produced today. They do not cross the line of non-life to life since they cannot compete with modern cells. The first cells were, and still are, simple vesicles of lipids. A natural cell wall with just water, and whatever impurities exist, inside it. These grow slowly and steadily by the accumulation of more lipids until they grow too large and break. Now you have two "empty" cells. It is not alive by any means since it does not follow the basic definitions of life. But sometime after self replicating RNA formed enough of the conditions for life arose so that all would agree that a cell was "alive". RNA can do most of the work that other chemicals do. It just not do them as well.

At any rate the first life probably was a much larger cell than modern cells with multiple competing strands of self replicating RNA in it. Reproduction was by just growing and eventual breaking as still occurs with lipids today. Except once self replicating RNA existed each new cell formed when the vesicle split would have some of the strands of self replicating RNA from the former cell. If one bases "life" on just that then there is only one question left for abiogenesis to solve.
 
YoursTrue

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
SavedByTheLord said:
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.
Click to expand...
I truly doubt you will find too many people here to say that the first creature could not have come into being by random chance. Maybe they'll pick on the word random? :)
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Kind of sad that people come to forums about religion in general to brag about knowing better of biology than biologists.

Pride and arrogance are very, very poor substitutes for actual scientific knowledge and respect for truth.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
LuisDantas said:
Kind of sad that people come to forums about religion in general to brag about knowing better of biology than biologists.

Pride and arrogance are very, very poor substitutes for actual scientific knowledge and respect for truth.
Click to expand...
That is the danger for those that believe in evolution and billions of years.
 
Dan From Smithville

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
SavedByTheLord said:
I am posting lots of different things.
Click to expand...
I don't see it that way and I don't think others do either. You keep posting links that you make claims about, but do not explain. Did Christ do that. I don't think so.
SavedByTheLord said:
This could not have evolved. It is just incredible.

Click to expand...
Once again, you need to explain what this is and why it could not have evolved. Don't test me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top