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

[Subduction Zone]

No argument here!

Dang it!! I forgot my other possible source of amino acids. They have been found to form naturally from hydrothermal vents:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0016703794902887

Not only that but natural cell membranes form in the same environment:

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/physical-world/2020/searching-high-and-low-origins-life

In other words the first life did not need to make a cell membrane. The ability to make and maintain one likely evolved later. The first life could have merely relied on the natural vesicles that form from lipids around "black smokers".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why do you think that a specific sequence is needed? You are making the lottery error again.

Not me. So you think that any sequence works. Not even lose. Even if 90%of sequences could work, it would still be impossible.
I went right for the Achilles heel with abiogenesis and the amino acid sequences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not me. So you think that any sequence works. Not even lose. Even if 90%of sequences could work, it would still be impossible.
I went right for the Achilles heel with abiogenesis and the amino acid sequences.

More poor debating techniques. No, not "any sequence". But there would be quite a few possible ways that abiogenesis occurred and there is no reason to think that only one sequence would work for life. We have trillions of different sequences now. They all seem to work good enough.

You are trying to claim that only one sequence could work, and that is rather obviously false. In fact it can be refuted by using modern DNA. You see when DNA constructs amino acids there is often more than one way that the same one could be made. That alone refutes your "specific sequence" claim. Though since you could never support it no one had a burden of proof to refute it.


You do not even seem to understand how the burden of proof works. That makes it very hard for you to win any arguments.

You need to provide evidence that life arriving naturally is impossible. Not just state that it is. And you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

More poor debating techniques. No, not "any sequence". But there would be quite a few possible ways that abiogenesis occurred and there is no reason to think that only one sequence would work for life. We have trillions of different sequences now. They all seem to work good enough.

You are trying to claim that only one sequence could work, and that is rather obviously false. In fact it can be refuted by using modern DNA. You see when DNA constructs amino acids there is often more than one way that the same one could be made. That alone refutes your "specific sequence" claim. Though since you could never support it no one had a burden of proof to refute it.


You do not even seem to understand how the burden of proof works. That makes it very hard for you to win any arguments.

You need to provide evidence that life arriving naturally is impossible. Not just state that it is. And you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence.

Please tell what the first living creature's sequence was?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please tell what the first living creature's sequence was?

Sorry, but you forgot that you need to be able to justify questions to demand an answer. What makes you think that is a reasonable question? I can answer it, but there is no need for me to do so if you cannot justify your question. It appears to be a pointless question and there is no need to answer those.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sorry, but you forgot that you need to be able to justify questions to demand an answer. What makes you think that is a reasonable question? I can answer it, but there is no need for me to do so if you cannot justify your question. It appears to be a pointless question and there is no need to answer those.

Do you know where the first living thing came from? What was the sequence of amino acids?
If the universe is a computer simulation then can you go back in time and save all those people that died in natural disasters?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you know where the first living thing came from? What was the sequence of amino acids?
If the universe is a computer simulation then can you go back in time and save all those people that died in natural disasters?

You need to justify those questions.

If you cannot do so I have no obligation to answer them.. It looks as if you are spewing out nonsense in self defense.

Try again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You need to justify those questions.

If you cannot do so I have no obligation to answer them.. It looks as if you are spewing out nonsense in self defense.

Try again.

I did. You have no answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did. You have no answer.

I have an answer if you can ask a proper question. You were told what was wrong with your questions. If you do not want to correct them then you cannot complain when people ignore them.

 

[Little Dragon]

Not me. So you think that any sequence works. Not even lose. Even if 90%of sequences could work, it would still be impossible.
I went right for the Achilles heel with abiogenesis and the amino acid sequences.

It cannot be impossible, because we exist. There is no other mechanism by which life forms arise on planets. It must be, however improbable you judge it to be.

 

[Little Dragon]

You need to justify those questions.

If you cannot do so I have no obligation to answer them.. It looks as if you are spewing out nonsense in self defense.

Try again.

It sounds like an argument of incredulity, for which there is only one cure. Like many things, the seeker has to seek for themselves.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It cannot be impossible, because we exist. There is no other mechanism by which life forms arise on planets. It must be, however improbable you judge it to be.

That is why my proof is irrefutable.
Assume no God.
Abiogenesis becomes impossible. But life exists.
There is now a contraction from a false assumption,
Thus the assumption of no God is false.
Therefore God exists.

 

[Little Dragon]

It cannot be impossible, because we exist. There is no other mechanism by which life forms arise on planets. It must be, however improbable you judge it to be.

Rational and evidence based mechanism...that is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why my proof is irrefutable.
Assume no God.
Abiogenesis becomes impossible. But life exists.
There is now a contraction from a false assumption,
Thus the assumption of no God is false.
Therefore God exists.

LOL! You did not understand the objection and only demonstrated that you have no "proof". You refuted yourself.

And no, "Abiogenesis is impossible" is only an empty claim on your part that is pure assumption. You violate your own rules constantly. That makes them worthless.

 

[Little Dragon]

That is why my proof is irrefutable.
Assume no God.
Abiogenesis becomes impossible. But life exists.
There is now a contraction from a false assumption,
Thus the assumption of no God is false.
Therefore God exists.

I could not agree, abiogenesis is not impossible, because it happened, probably many times, independently, in the earliest days of this planet's existence, in which, chemically, it was a very different place, one conducive to abiogenesis. There is no need to insert a God into the explanation, nor would it explain anything.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

LOL! You did not understand the objection and only demonstrated that you have no "proof". You refuted yourself.

Please refute.

Can you give real evidence of anything that is more than 6000 years old? NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please refute.

Can you give real evidence of anything that is more than 6000 years old? NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

Define your terms properly. If you cannot perform such a simple task then you lose the argument from the start.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@SavedByTheLord , I am taking a little break. So you can slow down and think a bit. See if you can fix the errors in your "challenge".

 

[Little Dragon]

Please refute.

Can you give real evidence of anything that is more than 6000 years old? NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

Carbon 14 dating can date artifacts and remains up to 50000 years. Innumerable items have been dated with this method. There are others of course. You could not ask for a more objective method of dating a physical object. From this planet at least.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Carbon 14 dating can date artifacts and remains up to 50000 years. Innumerable items have been dated with this method. There are others of course. You could not ask for a more objective method of dating a physical object. From this planet at least.

Well there are dinosaur tissue that is not C-14 dead, so the dinosaurs are not about 100 million years old at all.