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

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good article .. but you failed to show where your claim is supported in that article .. and in fact on reading your article .. it does not argue against the emergence of humans from evolution at all .. and quite the reverse.

Notice the word "Most" in the phrase "Most Self Replicators" -- in context friend this means that "Most" Self Replicators are unlikely (given the stated initial conditions .. which you have not stated but what ever those may be). Some Self Replicators however are not unlikely and perhaps it is those that are responsible for the creation of life.

Hey man... now why would you go and rain on his parade using sound logic and reason?

That is so unfair....

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In your defense, there isn't much else to respond to in this subforum these days, sadly
It's pretty much dominated by his nonsense...

View attachment 86745

Each thread more absurd then the next...

And refute evolution and billions of years.
More on the way because there is lots of evidence against evolution and billions of years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And refute evolution and billions of years.
More on the way because there is lots of evidence against evolution and billions of years.

Every single one of those threads are either strawmen or logical fallacies or both.
Considering your posting history I only expect more of the same.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Every single one of those threads are either strawmen or logical fallacies or both.
Considering your posting history I only expect more of the same.

Why do evolutionists report so many very unscientific dates of things?
Can you see this great deception?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do evolutionists report so many very unscientific dates of things?

You failed to point out a single one.
Why are creationists only able to argue using fallacies and strawmen?

Can you see this great deception?

I can see the deception, allright....

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

Are you saying that it could never happen?

Or are you saying that the odds are so highly that it is very unlikely to have happened?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Are you saying that it could never happen?

Or are you saying that the odds are so highly that it is very unlikely to have happened?

It could never have happened.
But I gave the very large odds against for those that do not believe that.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It could never have happened.
But I gave the very large odds against for those that do not believe that.

But odds do mean that something can happen, its just that the odds are small. You have demonstrated small odds rather than impossibility.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But odds do mean that something can happen, its just that the odds are small. You have demonstrated small odds rather than impossibility.

Good to see you back.

I don't know that anything has been demonstrated. Just lots of claims, but you make a good point. If the odds of an event can be calculated, then a claim of impossibility is refuted.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Good to see you back.

I don't know that anything has been demonstrated. Just lots of claims, but you make a good point. If the odds of an event can be calculated, then a claim of impossibility is refuted.

Thanks! I am glad to be back.

Yeah, i said demonstrated to be diplomatic because I know less about evolution than he does.

But it always confused me that people show odds when odds actually means that something is possible.

 

[Revoltingest]

It could never have happened.
But I gave the very large odds against for those that do not believe that.

You've never shown all your work.
Just claims of calculations.
Mistaken premises, math errors, &
poor reasoning always dog such
faith based efforts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, i said demonstrated to be diplomatic because I know less about evolution than he does.

I don't think it's possible to know less then "nothing" about a subject.

But it always confused me that people show odds when odds actually means that something is possible.

I know, right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks! I am glad to be back.

Yeah, i said demonstrated to be diplomatic because I know less about evolution than he does.

But it always confused me that people show odds when odds actually means that something is possible.

I'm not sure it is possible to know less about evolution and science than what has been shown on these repetitive-themed OPs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't think it's possible to know less then "nothing" about a subject.





I know, right?

You beat me to the punch, but the sentiment is understandably shared.

 

[YoursTrue]

#622, which cites evidence.

It's evidence, perhaps, that reactions occur among variant sources.

 

[YoursTrue]

False:
2. Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection.
All living things reproduce, copying their genetic material and passing it on to their offspring. Thus, the ability to copy the molecules that encode genetic information is a key step in the origin of life — without it, life could not exist. This ability probably first evolved in the form of an RNA self-replicator — an RNA molecule that could copy itself.

​

Many biologists hypothesize that this step led to an “RNA world” in which RNA did many jobs, storing genetic information, copying itself, and performing basic metabolic functions. Today, these jobs are performed by many different sorts of molecules (DNA, RNA, and proteins, mostly), but in the RNA world, RNA did it all.

Self-replication opened the door for natural selection. Once a self-replicating molecule formed, some variants of these early replicators would have done a better job of copying themselves than others, producing more “offspring.” These super-replicators would have become more common — that is, until one of them was accidentally built in a way that allowed it to be a super-super-replicator — and then, that variant would take over. Through this process of continuous natural selection, small changes in replicating molecules eventually accumulated until a stable, efficient replicating system evolved. -- How did life originate? - Understanding Evolution

The cited experiment was put together in a lab, right?

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Yes, mere "Chance " could create nothing, very truly, right?

Regards

 

[Samael_Khan]

I don't think it's possible to know less then "nothing" about a subject.





I know, right?

I have evolved quite a few pokemon and digimon in my life. Does that count as knowledge?

 

[Samael_Khan]

I'm not sure it is possible to know less about evolution and science than what has been shown on these repetitive-themed OPs.

I don't think those people are being honest with themselves. They know more than they let on. They just suppress their knowledge of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have evolved quite a few pokemon and digimon in my life. Does that count as knowledge?

I suppose it offers a metaphor of the conception of evolution as change over time.