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

[SavedByTheLord]

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 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.Where would such an amount of amino acids even occur in nature to even make a first creature? They must be in very near proximity to where the first creature came to be. In water they would immediately diluted and chemical reactions would destroy it. And above ground or in space, it would be destroyed by the the sunlight. So the first creature is impossible.

If such a great miracle did occur, the poor creature will not survive long at all. It is not protected from its environment. Chemical reactions will begin to destroy it within seconds. Which is just another problem. It would take too long to assemble itself. Destruction will happen faster than construction.
The poor creature cannot feed itself. It will also not be able to repair itself.
It will not be able to have any offspring. So it could never exist. So even if it did come into existence, it would die quickly and could not have offspring

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 contradictions. 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.

 

[sun rise]

That's a "God of the gaps" argument which has been refuted over and over again. Building block of life found in sample from asteroid Ryugu shows that some precursors exist in space. There's other research eating away at the gaps the OP post depends on.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The OP argument comes down to this: "I don't know, so I know!"

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That's a "God of the gaps" argument which has been refuted over and over again. Building block of life found in sample from asteroid Ryugu shows that some precursors exist in space. There's other research eating away at the gaps the OP post depends on.

It is not the present of building blocks that is the issue. It is the assembling of the building blocks into a particular sequence that is the impossibility.

 

[Wandering Monk]

It is the assembling of the building blocks into a particular sequence that is the impossibility.

Is it? How do you know that? Show us your calculations. Straight math doesn't take into account chemical affinities.

 

[sun rise]

It is not the present of building blocks that is the issue. It is the assembling of the building blocks into a particular sequence that is the impossibility.

You claim impossible. I say unknown but being worked on active. Bard.google.com says

Yes, there is a lot of research on how the building blocks of life were first assembled. One of the most well-known theories is the RNA world hypothesis, which proposes that RNA was the first self-replicating molecule on Earth. RNA is a versatile molecule that can both store and transmit genetic information. It is also able to catalyze chemical reactions, which makes it a good candidate for the first enzyme.
Scientists have conducted a number of experiments to test the RNA world hypothesis. For example, they have shown that RNA can form complex structures that are able to catalyze chemical reactions. They have also shown that RNA can replicate itself under certain conditions.
Another theory about the assembly of the building blocks of life is the metabolism-first hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that metabolic networks arose before DNA or RNA. Metabolism is the set of chemical reactions that occur in a cell to maintain life. Scientists have argued that metabolic networks could have arisen from simple organic molecules that were present on early Earth.
The RNA world hypothesis and the metabolism-first hypothesis are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that both RNA and metabolism played a role in the assembly of the building blocks of life.
Here are some sources for research on the assembly of the building blocks of life:

• The RNA World Hypothesis: The Origin of Life by Gerald Joyce (2002)
• The Metabolism-First Hypothesis and the Origin of Life by Nick Lane (2009)
• The Origins of Life by Freeman Dyson (1999)
• Life's Ratchet: How Molecular Machines Extract Order from Chaos by Peter Atkins (2009)

These are just a few examples of the many books and articles that have been written on this topic. There is a lot of active research in this area, and new discoveries are being made all the time.

Also: Self-sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Is it? How do you know that? Show us your calculations. Straight math doesn't take into account chemical affinities.

There is no chemical affinity that produces a specific sequence of amino acid.

 

[King Phenomenon]

If that time really did exist I think life could’ve formed from inorganic material. But I believe the Earth began around 1980 so that’s irrelevant. Creation of existence is nutty enough so starting around 1980 is nothing.

 

[ChristineM]

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 have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.

Way off base, someone hase been feeding you a line and you swallowed it. 20 amino acids are all that is required for life and really only 9 of them are essential.

And at the other end of the scale

Base pairs is also off mark with up to 600 million base pairs per cell

A single cell can range from 300 million to 50 trillion atoms depending on the call

 

[ChristineM]

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 have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.

Way off base, someone hase been feeding you a line and you swallowed it. 20 amino acids are all that is required for life and really only 9 of them are essential.

And at the other end of the scale

Base pairs is also off mark with up to 600 million base pairs per cell

A single cell can range from 300 million to 50 trillion atoms depending on the call

 

[Wandering Monk]

There is no chemical affinity that produces a specific sequence of amino acid.

Show us your calculations on the probability of life arising by chance, factoring in all potential variables.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Great, we start out the thread with a strawman argument.

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 have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.

No, that is not true. You are looking at the simplest existing cell. And that cell has an evolutionary history of at least 3.6 billion years. A lot of complexity can be picked up in that time.

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.Where would such an amount of amino acids even occur in nature to even make a first creature? They must be in very near proximity to where the first creature came to be. In water they would immediately diluted and chemical reactions would destroy it. And above ground or in space, it would be destroyed by the the sunlight. So the first creature is impossible.

That is right. It is a good thing that abiogenesis does not say that life began that way then, isn't it?

If such a great miracle did occur, the poor creature will not survive long at all. It is not protected from its environment. Chemical reactions will begin to destroy it within seconds. Which is just another problem. It would take too long to assemble itself. Destruction will happen faster than construction.
The poor creature cannot feed itself. It will also not be able to repair itself.
It will not be able to have any offspring. So it could never exist. So even if it did come into existence, it would die quickly and could not have offspring

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 contradictions. 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.

No, all that you proved is that you are scientifically illiterate.

When you do not understand something you should politely ask questions.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

Actually it's you making claims here so the burden of proof is on you. And "god did it by magic" is not proof

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no chemical affinity that produces a specific sequence of amino acid.

And you know this how?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And you know this how?

There is no affinity to produce a specific sequence. With absolute certainty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no affinity to produce a specific sequence. With absolute certainty.

Stating a belief does not make it a certainty. or are you saying that there is no absolute certainty of a particular sequence? If it is the latter than that can be refuted with a simple: So what?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Life's origin remains a mystery to scientists. They work tirelessly to figure it out. Luckily the theists have stepped in and hamfistedly resolved the matter. Problem solved.

As advanced as our technology is, despite our capacity to launch satellites into orbit, we STILL do not fully understand all the complexities of the simple shamrock. Therefore, leprechaun magic indisputably exists. If any "haters" out there want to deny leprechaun magic, we need only point to the shamrock. Unless the leprechaun-deniers can produce a comprehensive explanation for every single facet of a shamrock's biology (including the exact minutia of its mitochondria) we are left with leprechaun magic as the only viable explanation.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Great, we start out the thread with a strawman argument.

No, that is not true. You are looking at the simplest existing cell. And that cell has an evolutionary history of at least 3.6 billion years. A lot of complexity can be picked up in that time.


That is right. It is a good thing that abiogenesis does not say that life began that way then, isn't it?

No, all that you proved is that you are scientifically illiterate.

When you do not understand something you should politely ask questions.

So what was the first living creature?
What was its code?
Was it RNA, DNA or protein based, or some combo?
Where did it come into existence?

You do not even have a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what was the first living creature?
What was its code?
Was it RNA, DNA or protein based, or some combo?
Where did it come into existence?

You do not even have a theory.

Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. The odds are that we will never know what the first life was like exactly. Why do you think that it is necessary to know such a thing. What you do not seem to understand is that we have quite a bit of scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence at all for any form of creationism. You are far far far behind in the game. You are in no position to be complaining about abiogenesis.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. The odds are that we will never know what the first life was like exactly. Why do you think that it is necessary to know such a thing. What you do not seem to understand is that we have quite a bit of scientific evidence for abiogenesis. There does not appear to be any reliable evidence at all for any form of creationism. You are far far far behind in the game. You are in no position to be complaining about abiogenesis.

So there is no theory on how life arose anywhere. So why teach the fraud.

But what I have posted proves it could not happen anywhere.