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

[Dan From Smithville]

All evidence from all creation proves evolution and billions of years are false.

What evidence. Your saying so and believing it is evidence only that you believe and not that it happened the way it is described. Your belief does not trump conclusions based on logic and evidence. Otherwise, everyone's belief would and out of 8 billion people that is a lot of different belief.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What evidence. Your saying so and believing it is evidence only that you believe and not that it happened the way it is described. Your belief does not trump conclusions based on logic and evidence. Otherwise, everyone's belief would and out of 8 billion people that is a lot of different belief.

I have multiple threads which back up my claims.
More is coming.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have multiple threads which back up my claims.

You have multiple threads that repeat the same claims over and over with the concurrent rebuttals that devastate your claims. You don't back up your claims. You just make new threads and repeat them adding more baseless claims as you go. It reminds me of tumblebugs in a cow pasture.

More is coming.

More of the same. Sure.

 

[Eddi]

I have multiple threads which back up my claims.
More is coming.

Oh wow I can't wait

 

[Alekdar]

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.

Certainly 100.000 aminoacids in a particular sequence sounds quite unlikely, not impossible mind you, i don't know where this number cames from.
The minimum unit that would have been needed would be a self replicating protein, that would be way less than 100.000, of course i wouldn't count it as Life, but it's a start. This could have happened in warm pools, with abundant water and organic compounds, and a lot of time, it doesn't mean it happened the first week, but once it happened, and you have a single self replicating structure in the entire planet, if the environment stays that way, it's bound to spread.
When you say things like "Impossible" it seems like u can guarantee that it cannot happen, and for all we know, all this phenomena are: if unlikely, certainly allowed by the laws of the universe, nothing miraculous happened, just highly improbable.
I really have a hard time believing that a book compilation as the Bible offers better explanations for things that are so far in time, i think it was written by humans, fallible, biased, with personal motivations humans, and the way they explained the genesis of the world it was quite convincing for that time, but our actual ways of measuring and discovering stuff are way beyond ancient imagination, maybe they are less fantastic, less satisfactory, less human centered, but nonetheless, seem way more plausible that a "being beyond nature made it all"

Cheers!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Certainly 100.000 aminoacids in a particular sequence sounds quite unlikely, not impossible mind you, i don't know where this number cames from.
The minimum unit that would have been needed would be a self replicating protein, that would be way less than 100.000, of course i wouldn't count it as Life, but it's a start. This could have happened in warm pools, with abundant water and organic compounds, and a lot of time, it doesn't mean it happened the first week, but once it happened, and you have a single self replicating structure in the entire planet, if the environment stays that way, it's bound to spread.
When you say things like "Impossible" it seems like u can guarantee that it cannot happen, and for all we know, all this phenomena are: if unlikely, certainly allowed by the laws of the universe, nothing miraculous happened, just highly improbable.
I really have a hard time believing that a book compilation as the Bible offers better explanations for things that are so far in time, i think it was written by humans, fallible, biased, with personal motivations humans, and the way they explained the genesis of the world it was quite convincing for that time, but our actual ways of measuring and discovering stuff are way beyond ancient imagination, maybe they are less fantastic, less satisfactory, less human centered, but nonetheless, seem way more plausible that a "being beyond nature made it all"

Cheers!

Wikipedia says that the smallest living free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
I was generous at only 100,000 base pairs.
But there is more than just DNA. One must take into account the whole proteome and all the other atoms which make up a first living creature.

 

[Alekdar]

Wikipedia says that the smallest living free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
I was generous at only 100,000 base pairs.
But there is more than just DNA. One must take into account the whole proteome and all the other atoms which make up a first living creature.

I have no doubt wikipedia is fairly certain, but as u said: Smallest living free creature "Has".
The origin of life woulnd't have been anything like "free living things" more like "wierd self replicating proteins" and if my memory serves, DNA is fairly more recent than RNA, RNA is a bit more crude, but also more versatile, so life wouldnt have needed such big structures to self replicate, just time and organic compounds, granted, we don't know if this process didn't happened for thousands of years, but in geological/astronomical scales, this is less than a blink of the eye.
Cheers!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I have no doubt wikipedia is fairly certain, but as u said: Smallest living free creature "Has".
The origin of life woulnd't have been anything like "free living things" more like "wierd self replicating proteins" and if my memory serves, DNA is fairly more recent than RNA, RNA is a bit more crude, but also more versatile, so life wouldnt have needed such big structures to self replicate, just time and organic compounds, granted, we don't know if this process didn't happened for thousands of years, but in geological/astronomical scales, this is less than a blink of the eye.
Cheers!

There are no self replicating proteins, no self replicating RNA, and no self replicating DNA.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet not descended from any primate.

Since humans are primates, all humans are descended from primates.
Just like they are mammals and thus all descend from mammals.

Derp

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no doubt wikipedia is fairly certain, but as u said: Smallest living free creature "Has".
The origin of life woulnd't have been anything like "free living things" more like "wierd self replicating proteins" and if my memory serves, DNA is fairly more recent than RNA, RNA is a bit more crude, but also more versatile, so life wouldnt have needed such big structures to self replicate, just time and organic compounds, granted, we don't know if this process didn't happened for thousands of years, but in geological/astronomical scales, this is less than a blink of the eye.
Cheers!

Actually, self-replicating RNA is known.

I'll be honest, I haven't read this particular reference beyond the abstract, it is a discussion focused on application rather than origin, but it is sufficient to demonstrate that self-replicating RNA exists.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7122455/pdf/978-1-4939-6481-9_Chapter_2.pdf

Some RNA has enzymatic capability that was first elucidated by Thomas Cech in the early 80's. I can't find a pdf, but include a popular reference from Scientific America if you're interested. It has been a while, but if you can find it, it is a good article. If you are affiliated with a university with library access, it is accessible on JSTOR.

Cech, T. R. (1986). RNA as an enzyme. Scientific American, 255(5), 64-75.

Here is a description from PNAS.
Cech, T. R. (1986). A model for the RNA-catalyzed replication of RNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83(12), 4360-4363.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.83.12.4360

Welcome aboard. You will notice this series of OP's makes a lot of claims with often no support or very questionable support form unaccredited sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wikipedia says that the smallest living free-living creature has over 1.3 million base pairs.
I was generous at only 100,000 base pairs.
But there is more than just DNA. One must take into account the whole proteome and all the other atoms which make up a first living creature.

That is the smallest living thing with 3.8 billion years of evolution. So no, you were not being generous at all.

Tell us, what is necessary for life in your opinion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no self replicating proteins, no self replicating RNA, and no self replicating DNA.

Really? Then how did you get here?

Somebody call 911!! SaveByThe Lord just proved that he is dead!!

 

[John53]

Really? Then how did you get here?

Somebody call 911!! SaveByThe Lord just proved that he is dead!!

I tried but I just get a recorded message telling me to ring 000

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Really? Then how did you get here?

Somebody call 911!! SaveByThe Lord just proved that he is dead!!

RNA does not replicate itself .
It needs proteins also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

RNA does not replicate itself .
It needs proteins also.

Citation needed.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Citation needed.

Any high school biology book.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Any high school biology book.

So, nothing. As expected.

See post #610 for the answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Any high school biology book.

That is not how you do that. Find your source, quote it and link it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That is not how you do that. Find your source, quote it and link it.

So, you should get a high school biology book and read it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you should get a high school biology book and read it.

That is not how it works. And I seriously doubt that a high school biology book would have that error in it. But that's okay. You already admitted that you are wrong by not providing a source when needed.