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

[SavedByTheLord]

Make your mind up. There's either no way or there's a chance. You keep refuting yourself.

I proved no way at all.
But the odds against are unfathomably against so that too refuted abiogenesis.
It is easier to just estimate the odds against the very large code sequence.

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.
or the odds that the amoebas code come into being by random chance is 1 in 10^trillion.

 

[John53]

I proved no way at all.
But the odds against are unfathomably against so that too refuted abiogenesis.
It is easier to just estimate the odds against the very large code sequence.

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.
or the odds that the amoebas code come into being by random chance is 1 in 10^trillion.

If there's no way at all there can't be odds against it happening. You make refuting easy, just have to quote your own post.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If there's no way at all there can't be odds against it happening. You make refuting easy, just have to quote your own post.

Well what are the odds against?
Or how did the first living creature come into being?

 

[John53]

Well what are the odds against?

You're the one listing odds of it happening, you tell me.

Or how did the first living creature come into being?

Define what you mean by "living creature" and I might have a better idea but probably not. This is from the Collins dictionary. I doubt first life would fit in there anywhere.

1.
a living being, esp an animal

2.
something that has been created, whether animate or inanimate
a creature of the imagination

3.
a human being; person: used as a term of scorn, pity, or endearment

4.
a person who is dependent upon another; tool or puppet

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You're the one listing odds of it happening, you tell me.



Define what you mean by "living creature" and I might have a better idea but probably not. This is from the Collins dictionary. I doubt first life would fit in there anywhere.

1.
a living being, esp an animal

2.
something that has been created, whether animate or inanimate
a creature of the imagination

3.
a human being; person: used as a term of scorn, pity, or endearment

4.
a person who is dependent upon another; tool or puppet

Any living creature of any kind of creature.
Remember to give lots of details about their codes, number of aminos, times, names and places.

 

[John53]

Any living creature of any kind of creature.
Remember to give lots of details about their codes, number of aminos, times, names and places.

Don't know, don't care. Whatever it was went on the evolve into the diversity life I see around me today.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Don't know, don't care. Whatever it was went on the evolve into the diversity life I see around me today.

So, how did the first living thing of whatever kind it was, survive long enough to make the first offspring?

 

[Revoltingest]

Now the OP has an irrefutable proof.

Has the definition of "irrefutable" changed
to become synonymous with "bogus", "strained",
"fanciful", "irrational", "dumb", or "hilarious"?
I can't discern which it is.

 

[John53]

So, how did the first living thing of whatever kind it was, survive long enough to make the first offspring?

Don't know, don't care, doubt if I'll ever know but it/them went on to evolve into the diversity of life we see today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has no way to produce the code of the amoeba.

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.

The lottery fallacy again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I proved no way at all.
But the odds against are unfathomably against so that too refuted abiogenesis.
It is easier to just estimate the odds against the very large code sequence.

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.
or the odds that the amoebas code come into being by random chance is 1 in 10^trillion.

No, you only proved that you are ignorant about mathematics and biology, ooh and logic too. Yet you run away from every offer to help you to understand your errors. That means that even you know that you are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, how did the first living thing of whatever kind it was, survive long enough to make the first offspring?

I don't know. Why do you think that we need to know that? Let's see if you can reason logically. If you can you will come up with a valid reason that we have to know this.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I don't know. Why do you think that we need to know that? Let's see if you can reason logically. If you can you will come up with a valid reason that we have to know this.

Then how do you know that it ever happened or is even impossible without God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then how do you know that it ever happened or is even impossible without God?

Why even bring a god into the discussion? You would need to show that one is possible first. You do not seem to know how science works. There are no unjustified assumptions allowed. Assuming that a god exists is an unjustified assumption. No one is assuming that a god does not exist. One only looks at the evidence and where it points to. We do know that at one point the Earth had no life. We know that later on that it did. Figuring out how that happened is a scientific question. The scientific evidence points towards abiogenesis. There is no evidence for "god done did it, yup, yup yup". And that is the fault of creationists that are too afraid that they are wrong and so will not do science properly.

Please answer this, if creation "scientists" really believe their stories then why do they not form a proper scientific hypothesis and test it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why even bring a god into the discussion?

Err .. I thought that was obvious .. we're posting on religious forums.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Err .. I thought that was obvious .. we're posting on religious forums.

Yes, but the forum covers much more than just religious topics.

 

[McBell]

Then how do you know that it ever happened or is even impossible without God?

There is life on earth.
There is no evidence that any deity was involved.
Let alone your favorite diety.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution has no way to produce the code of the amoeba.

The strawman version of the process, which you insist on, indeed doesn't.
The actual process, which you refuse to learn, does though

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.

Evolution isn't random.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the odds against are unfathomably against so that too refuted abiogenesis.

Ow boy... So many fails in a single statement....

1. refuting evolution, doesn't refute abiogenesis
2. refuting abiogenesis, doesn't refute evolution
3. arguing against a strawman version of evolution, has no impact on actual evolution


You fail accross the board.

It is easier to just estimate the odds against the very large code sequence.

The odds against the amoebas code by random chance is 39^640 billon to 1 or 10^trillion to 1.
or the odds that the amoebas code come into being by random chance is 1 in 10^trillion.

Evolution isn't random.

How many times must it be repeated before you'll let go of your strawmen?

Why do you double down on bearing false witness?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, how did the first living thing of whatever kind it was, survive long enough to make the first offspring?

By not dying before reproducing