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

[Subduction Zone]

The list is large So explanations would make it too large for a post.
Challenge any. Just do some research.

I did. You were supposed to support that list. You refused to do so. I explained how the first claim was wrong Do you need links? It is so easy to refute that one. Once again, if you do not support your list by showing that they are right refuting one refutes them all. Sorry, but that is the rule when one tries to cheat in such a fashion.

 

[sayak83]

Which ones?

Others are already on it. I do not want to repeat what others are already saying.

 

[The Hammer]

Marx praised Darwin and Mao was a Marxist.

So what?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I did. You were supposed to support that list. You refused to do so. I explained how the first claim was wrong Do you need links? It is so easy to refute that one. Once again, if you do not support your list by showing that they are right refuting one refutes them all. Sorry, but that is the rule when one tries to cheat in such a fashion.

Can you refute a single one on the list?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you refute a single one on the list?

Yes.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes.

Please try one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Let's start with this claim. That is simply not true. You cannot find any evidence that makes that claim. I know where you probably got this idea from, but there is no evidence that we needed "100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence". That is pure nonsense. You got that by looking at modern life and making the obvious error of assuming that the simplest modern life is the simplest life possible.

All that would really be needed is a self reproducing strand of RNA in a natural cell wall. And lipids in water will automatically form natural vesicles. No coding needed. Perhaps you should have studied abiogenesis a bit to see which problems have been answered. At any rate that claim fails because you forgot to support it at all. It is so weak that a mere handwave refutes it and I gave you more than that.


Do you have any serious objections? Or is that all that you have? Questions that you show that you have no clue and you pretend that is some sort of refutation.


Even if you just ask a question you still have to justify the assumptions that you made in your question. If you did not do so the question fails before anyone even tries to answer it.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Let's start with this claim. That is simply not true. You cannot find any evidence that makes that claim. I know where you probably got this idea from, but there is no evidence that we needed "100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence". That is pure nonsense. You got that by looking at modern life and making the obvious error of assuming that the simplest modern life is the simplest life possible.

All that would really be needed is a self reproducing strand of RNA in a natural cell wall. And lipids in water will automatically form natural vesicles. No coding needed. Perhaps you should have studied abiogenesis a bit to see which problems have been answered. At any rate that claim fails because you forgot to support it at all. It is so weak that a mere handwave refutes it and I gave you more than that.


Do you have any serious objections? Or is that all that you have? Questions that you show that you have no clue and you pretend that is some sort of refutation.


Even if you just ask a question you still have to justify the assumptions that you made in your question. If you did not do so the question fails before anyone even tries to answer it.

Here is the source for the smallest free-living creature.

Smallest organisms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was very generous with just 100,000 base pairs. The smallest free-living creature has about 1.3 million base pairs. I also did not include the many millions of other atoms for the creature. So i was extremely generous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the source for the smallest free-living creature.

Smallest organisms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was very generous with just 100,000 base pairs. The smallest free-living creature has about 1.3 million base pairs. I also did not include the many millions of other atoms for the creature. So i was extremely generous.

That is exactly the error that I predicted. That is the smallest modern life. That has to be that complex to compete with all of the other modern life.

The first life would have had no competition. It could have been much much much simpler. For example it would not have any need for any defense against other life.


This is why you fail. You have no clue at all as to what you are arguing about.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That is exactly the error that I predicted. That is the smallest modern life. That has to be that complex to compete with all of the other modern life.

The first life would have had no competition. It could have been much much much simpler. For example it would not have any need for any defense against other life.


This is why you fail. You have no clue at all as to what you are arguing about.

It has has no protection and food source nor anyway to have offspring when you try to make it too small.

I made the frist living creature 1/13 the size of the smallest free-living creature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has has no protection and food source nor anyway to have offspring when you try to make it too small.

I made the frist living creature 1/13 the size of the smallest free-living creature.

More assumptions on your part. No, it would have a natural cell wall. If you do not understand something you can ask for sources. That very simple cell walls form naturally is well understood. It was one of the first problems solved in abiogenesis and we can still observe this today:

Origins of Life II | Biology | Visionlearning

Building on earlier experiments showing how life’s chemical building blocks could form from nonliving material on early Earth, this module explores theories on the next steps needed for life. These include the formation of long polymers, which then fold into complex macromolecules. The module...

www.visionlearning.com

"Early membranes must have been very different from modern ones. Unlike the complex systems of lipids and proteins that comprise living membranes, simple kinds of membranes can actually form spontaneously and may have been forming all over the primeval Earth.

Anybody who makes bubbles with soap has seen the tendency of lipid molecules to form spherical shapes when they are in contact with water (see our Lipids: An introduction module). Soap molecules are amphipathic, meaning they possess both a water-loving and a water-hating portion. Each molecule has a “head” section that is hydrophilic (water-loving), because it contains polar covalent bonds using atoms such as oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Each molecule also has a “tail” that is hydrophobic (water-hating), because it consists of nonpolar bonds of only carbon and hydrogen atoms (Figure 1; see our Membranes I: Introduction to Biological Membranes module to learn more)."

But I am so glad that you have finally admitted that evolution was a fact. You admitted that by continuing to discuss abiogenesis after you were warned about moving the goalposts.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

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.

Around, say, November 1980...?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

More assumptions on your part. No, it would have a natural cell wall. If you do not understand something you can ask for sources. That very simple cell walls form naturally is well understood. It was one of the first problems solved in abiogenesis and we can still observe this today:

Origins of Life II | Biology | Visionlearning

Building on earlier experiments showing how life’s chemical building blocks could form from nonliving material on early Earth, this module explores theories on the next steps needed for life. These include the formation of long polymers, which then fold into complex macromolecules. The module...

www.visionlearning.com

"Early membranes must have been very different from modern ones. Unlike the complex systems of lipids and proteins that comprise living membranes, simple kinds of membranes can actually form spontaneously and may have been forming all over the primeval Earth.

Anybody who makes bubbles with soap has seen the tendency of lipid molecules to form spherical shapes when they are in contact with water (see our Lipids: An introduction module). Soap molecules are amphipathic, meaning they possess both a water-loving and a water-hating portion. Each molecule has a “head” section that is hydrophilic (water-loving), because it contains polar covalent bonds using atoms such as oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus. Each molecule also has a “tail” that is hydrophobic (water-hating), because it consists of nonpolar bonds of only carbon and hydrogen atoms (Figure 1; see our Membranes I: Introduction to Biological Membranes module to learn more)."

But I am so glad that you have finally admitted that evolution was a fact. You admitted that by continuing to discuss abiogenesis after you were warned about moving the goalposts.

So hypothetical assumptions about a hypothetical creature that would not survive or have offspring is now certain.
That is not science but pagan myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So hypothetical assumptions about a hypothetical creature that would not survive or have offspring is now certain.
That is not science but pagan myth.

Oh my, do you try to get the science wrong? It is the only talent that you have displayed here.

 

[Jimmy]

Wh

Around, say, November 1980...?

Who knows

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Wh

Who knows

It happens to be when I was born, so...

 

[Subduction Zone]

It happens to be when I was born, so...

So it is your fault!!

 

[Jimmy]

It happens to be when I was born, so...

It’s possible

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Can you refute a single one on the list?

Literally no one has to. It's your list. You have to show those things say what you claim they do. Explain them. Provide legitimate sources.

But that's not going to happen right? Right.

Not much point in following these threads that are really meaningless posturing as near as I can tell.

You have a wonderful day.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Literally no one has to. It's your list. You have to show those things say what you claim they do. Explain them. Provide legitimate sources.

But that's not going to happen right? Right.

Not much point in following these threads that are really meaningless posturing as near as I can tell.

You have a wonderful day.

So you cannot even answer any of these simple questions or refute these well known thugs that falsify evolution and billions of years.