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

[SavedByTheLord]

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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Correct. It more likely came into being as a result of natural, physical laws that influenced the interaction of the particles that produced it.

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.

Have you ever seen a ball fall and hit the ground? What are the odds that that ball, purely by chance, would land on that one specific square metre of the earth's surface?

It's one in 510.1 trillion.

So, if you were to watch a ball fall and hit the earth, is that a miracle? After-all, you have just witnessed an event that has a likelihood of 1 in 510.1 trillion. Why are you not in awe at such an event?

Because you understand that the outcome of the ball touching that specific square of the earth is not a result of "pure random chance", but the outcome of a series of physical laws and circumstance. You know that a ball falling HAS to strike a particular square metre of the earth's surface. You also know that the fall of the ball is not determined by random chance or luck, but governed by the physical force of gravity. You know that a ball that starts in a particular position is drawn towards a particular spot on the earth's surface (most likely directly below it, allowing for the influence of wind and so on).

So, in summary, you know that the observation "a ball hitting a specific square metre of surface of the earth by random chance is 510.1 trillion" is completely nonsensical, because it refuses to take account of any factor that plays directly into influencing where the ball falls and the fact that the ball HAS to land somewhere.

This is no different to this childishly simplistic calculation you have presented. Calculating something as complex as billions-of-years-long biological and chemical processes as being up to "sheer random chance" is obviously as misleading as determining that the fall of a ball onto a specific square metre of the surface of the earth is miraculous.

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.

No, there wouldn't. There would just need to be natural replication with variation and environmental attrition.

That is impossible to have happened by random chance.
Therefore, God created all things.
A simple elegant proof.

Not really. Even if your clearly false argument were valid, it wouldn't be proof of God.

Assume no God. Show the contradiction. Therefore, God exists.
The proof that the Bible is the true word of God is also easy.

So easy that nobody has ever been able to provide it despite thousands of years of people trying, apparently.

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.

We met the burden of proof decades ago.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Correct. It more likely came into being as a result of natural, physical laws that influenced the interaction of the particles that produced it.


Have you ever seen a ball fall and hit the ground? What are the odds that that ball, purely by chance, would land on that one specific square metre of the earth's surface?

It's one in 510.1 trillion.

So, if you were to watch a ball fall and hit the earth, is that a miracle? After-all, you have just witnessed an event that has a likelihood of 1 in 510.1 trillion. Why are you not in awe at such an event?

Because you understand that the outcome of the ball touching that specific square of the earth is not a result of "pure random chance", but the outcome of a series of physical laws and circumstance. You know that a ball falling HAS to strike a particular square metre of the earth's surface. You also know that the fall of the ball is not determined by random chance or luck, but governed by the physical force of gravity. You know that a ball that starts in a particular position is drawn towards a particular spot on the earth's surface (most likely directly below it, allowing for the influence of wind and so on).

So, in summary, you know that the observation "a ball hitting a specific square metre of surface of the earth by random chance is 510.1 trillion" is completely nonsensical, because it refuses to take account of any factor that plays directly into influencing where the ball falls and the fact that the ball HAS to land somewhere.

This is no different to this childishly simplistic calculation you have presented. Calculating something as complex as billions-of-years-long biological and chemical processes as being up to "sheer random chance" is obviously as misleading as determining that the fall of a ball onto a specific square metre of the surface of the earth is miraculous.


No, there wouldn't. There would just need to be natural replication with variation and environmental attrition.


Not really. Even if your clearly false argument were valid, it wouldn't be proof of God.


So easy that nobody has ever been able to provide it despite thousands of years of people trying, apparently.


We met the burden of proof decades ago.

Well science is never quite settled.

Now the OP has an irrefutable proof.
What is your opinion just looking at it/

 

[Kfox]

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

How do you know there was ever such a thing as a first creature? Consider the possibility that cells have always existed.

 

[F1fan]

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.

Cite the experts in science who agree with this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cite the experts in science who agree with this.

He made some incredible errors in his OP. One does not even need to go to experts. First off he made the totally inexcusable error of getting his raw numbers from the simplest known living organism. He does not seem to understand that even the simplest of living organisms would have a 3.7 billion year history of evolution where it had to change to compete with other life. It would have to develop defenses not only against other cells but against viruses too He also seems to think that there could only be one specific first life, when there would have been endless possibilities. That first life did not need anywhere near the traits that modern life has. For example the first cell walls were probably not even "alive". Vesicles form naturally when there are enough lipids in the water. They still form today. And once formed they tend to grow until turbulence breaks them apart.

That means that first life would only have needed self replicating RNA which also performed minimal metabolic functions. The RNA could self replicate more than once in a cell and when the cell grew to the point that a bit of turbulence broke it into more than one vesicle there would be "new cells" all of which one only need one copy of the RNA but could have more.

 

[McBell]

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.

Again?
You really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you?

I mean, the last thread you created with the same nonsense got your arse handed to you.
Even your choir bailed.

In case anyone wants to peruse the arse handing, here is a link to their other thread:

The first living thing could not have come into being by random chance, therefore, God Almighty created all things. Just 1 proof.

The first living creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible. A first living creature 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 1,300,000 base pairs. I also...

www.religiousforums.com

397 posts in 20 pages

 

[F1fan]

He made some incredible errors in his OP. One does not even need to go to experts.

Exactly. The claims are so absurd that they trap the member into incredulity.

 

[McBell]

Well science is never quite settled.

Now the OP has an irrefutable proof.
What is your opinion just looking at it/

see post #7

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well science is never quite settled.

Science is always progressing. It looks, then finds, then continues looking. That's what it does.

Now the OP has an irrefutable proof.
What is your opinion just looking at it/

I just gave you my opinion. It's nonsensical.

Do you have a response to my actual argument that explains precisely why it's nonsensical?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Science is always progressing. It looks, then finds, then continues looking. That's what it does.


I just gave you my opinion. It's nonsensical.

Do you have a response to my actual argument that explains precisely why it's nonsensical?

The irrefutable proof that I gave which used the law of non contradiction is hardly nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

\The irrefutable proof that I gave which used the law of non contradiction is hardly nonsense.

Several people refuted that irrefutable nonsense. You do not know how to use logical rules properly.

Do you want to go over it again?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Several people refuted that irrefutable nonsense. You do not know how to use logical rules properly.

Do you want to go over it again?

Please try.

 

[Little Dragon]

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.

Random does not exist, it's an abstract mathematical concept. Nothing is random in the universe. Not even quantum indeterminacy. Instead, there is chaos, highly complex order. Driven by cause and effect. The fact is life does exist and has clearly evolved, so, your incredulity aside, there is no reason to believe that life is any more random than stars or planets. It's an inevitable consequence of the universe (life) just as a rock is or a black hole. If the (local) physical parameters permit it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Random does not exist, it's an abstract mathematical concept. Nothing is random in the universe. Not even quantum indeterminacy. Instead, there is chaos, highly complex order. Driven by cause and effect. The fact is life does exist and has clearly evolved, so, your incredulity aside, there is no reason to believe that life is any more random than stars or planets. It's an inevitable consequence of the universe (life) just as a rock is or a black hole. If the (local) physical parameters permit it.

getting a very large specific sequence of amino acids is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please try.

Then quote it again. Do you think that you could understand the refutation?

 

[Little Dragon]

getting a very large specific sequence of amino acids is.

If you run an experiment billions of times over millions of years, you will more likely get the result you're looking for. That's true enough. That's probability. Amino acids form in space, they self assemble in molecular clouds, from atoms and molecules of hydrogen and carbon and others, via energizing UV radiation. There is no hand of God there either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

getting a very large specific sequence of amino acids is.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you run an experiment billions of times over millions of years, you will more likely get the result you're looking for. That's true enough. That's probability. Amino acids form in space, they self assemble in molecular clouds, via energizing UV radiation. There is no hand of God there either.

And not just in space. There are several possible sources on the Earth. The Urey Miller experiment was designed to test to see if amino acids could form naturally in an early Earth environment. The first experiment was successful. Then it was found that the atmosphere of their model could have been wrong. So it was tested again and again with varying early Earth atmospheres and they continued to get amino acids.

Some people get the experiment wrong. It was not designed to "prove abiogenesis". It was designed to test and see if one small aspect of abiogenesis could happen naturally. It could. So it is evidence for abiogenesis, but claims like abiogenesis require quite a few different positive tests. Of course that was getting close to 70 years ago. It was the first experiment in abiogenesis. Many other problems since then have been answered. Not all problems have been answered but there does not appear to be any natural barrier to abiogenesis.

 

[Little Dragon]

And not just in space. There are several possible sources on the Earth. The Urey Miller experiment was designed to test to see if amino acids could form naturally in an early Earth environment. The first experiment was successful. Then it was found that the atmosphere of their model could have been wrong. So it was tested again and again with varying early Earth atmospheres and they continued to get amino acids.

Some people get the experiment wrong. It was not designed to "prove abiogenesis". It was designed to test and see if one small aspect of abiogenesis could happen naturally. It could. So it is evidence for abiogenesis, but claims like abiogenesis require quite a few different positive tests. Of course that was getting close to 70 years ago. It was the first experiment in abiogenesis. Many other problems since then have been answered. Not all problems have been answered but there does not appear to be any natural barrier to abiogenesis.

No argument here!