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

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but you lack knowledge
from the dictionary

scripture​

noun​

scrip·ture ˈskrip(t)-shər

1
a(1)
capitalized : the books of the Bible

—often used in plural
(2)
often capitalized : a passage from the Bible
b
: a body of writings considered sacred or authoritative

So it means all the words of the Holy Bible,

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Tim 3:16-17

So you insist on losing the debate from the start. Fine with me.

You know that you can't even define Scripture. By the definition that you used Paul could not have been referring to "the Bible". You would see that if you could reason rationally.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So you insist on losing the debate from the start. Fine with me.

You know that you can't even define Scripture. By the definition that you used Paul could not have been referring to "the Bible". You would see that if you could reason rationally.

You have no clue then.
Just admit you are wrong yet again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no clue then.
Just admit you are wrong yet again.

No, why are you running away and making false accusations? Let's go over why you failed. OK?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, why are you running away and making false accusations? Let's go over why you failed. OK?

You are the one making false accusations because the truth is against you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are the one making false accusations because the truth is against you.

Please stop breaking the Ninth Commandment. Please stop running away.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Please stop breaking the Ninth Commandment. Please stop running away.

Please stop falsely accusing. You have demonstrated that evolution and billions of years is false to resort to such behavior

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please stop falsely accusing. You have demonstrated that evolution and billions of years is false to resort to such behavior

LOL!! Such projection.

You got mad because you could not even define scripture properly.

Try to stay on topic.

 

[Colt]

Actually the Bible is given by inspiration of God. But I am glad you believe that God did create life. There may be hope for you.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Tim 3:16-17

The church took that opinion of Paul (which may not mean what you think it means) and converted Paul's writing into scripture! The institutional church creates "scripture" as a means of control of the flock!


Some Hollywood movies are "inspired" by real events. The problem with the Bible is that some of it is true! Paul was a persecutor of the followers of Jesus! Then had a change of heart, claims Jesus returned already to meet with him, Paul then went his own way for 3+ years, didn't join the other apostles, produced his own religion called Christianity. Paul just happen to be the first very influential evangelist!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Good luck demonstrating that.

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.

You also haven't included it's the result of 4 billion years of evolution.

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.

Your "elegant" proof is nothing but fallacious rambling.

Even IF we would bend over backwards and accept your ridiculously false "premises", all this amounts to is nothing more or less then "we don't know, therefor god".

It's the argument of a 5-year old.

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.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

He didn't ask you to repeat the claim.
He asked you to demonstrate it.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do know quite a bit of science, math and logic.

The info about the smallest free-living thing is from here

Smallest organisms - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It has over 1.3 million base pairs. But I figured a more primitive first living creature of only 100,000 base pairs.
But remember I did not include the odds against the rest of the millions of atoms that had to be there too.

Those are also the result of 4 billion years of evolution.

Don't let honesty get in your way though

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I love science.

There is a big conundrum is that if evolution is gradHal, then the fossil record should show a continuum of gradually changing species

And it does.

. Yet it shows discrete species with millions of chains of missing links all still missing.

Did you expect a fossil of every generation of every lineage?

Furthermore, there should be partial new developing organs in all individuals of all species.

No.

They too are missing.

Evolution theory would actually be in trouble if such things WOULD exist. Irony, right?

The odds against gradual evolution just based on these 2 alone, is mind boggling.

Too bad they are strawmen.

But hopeful monsters (jumps) are impossible. Sexual reproduction eliminates that possibility.
So evolution cannot have happened gradually nor quickly in jumps. Therefore evolution cannot have happene.

Correct. The strawman of evolution you are trying to argue cannot have happened.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how do you explain all the millions of chains of missing links in the fossil record?

The same way I explain the millions of missing photo's of your face of all seconds you were alive.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The dino fossils are from the dinosaurs that dies in the flood.

So did these form before or after Noah, and every other living thing, would have been boiled to death?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So did these form before or after Noah, and every other living thing, would have been boiled to death?

There were alive before the flood and many died and were buried during the flood. And some of those became fossils.

The boiled to death shows a lack of understanding the miraculous power of the Almighty. God kept that from happening.

Read about Christ turning water to wine. A miracle which also would have had a large temperature change.
God can violate any natural law at all. That is why it is called a miracle. The no God assumption trips many up.

When determining the age of the earth and the universe or whether man evolved from primitive life forms, Atheistic Origin "science" uses the no God assumption.

The No God Assumption used by Atheistic Origin Science is that there is no God or He has done nothing miraculous in the last 6000 years.

Why would anyone who believes in Jesus Christ be conned into such thinking.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. - Psalm 14:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. - Psalm 53:1

Don't be conned by The No God Assumption used by Atheistic Origin Science .

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were alive before the flood and many died and were buried during the flood. And some of those became fossils.

But there was no flood, whenever you mention the flood you are calling God a liar, Perhaps we can discuss that later but I am sure that the science will be denied by you again.

The boiled to death shows a lack of understanding the miraculous power of the Almighty. God kept that from happening.

Oh yes, of course! How silly of me. Whenever you run into a problem that you cannot solve your answer is magic.

Read about Christ turning water to wine. A miracle which also would have had a large temperature change.
God can violate any natural law at all. That is why it is called a miracle. The no God assumption trips many up.

That is just another story in the Bible. It is not evidence.

When determining the age of the earth and the universe or whether man evolved from primitive life forms, Atheistic Origin "science" uses the no God assumption.

The No God Assumption used by Atheistic Origin Science is that there is no God or He has done nothing miraculous in the last 6000 years.

No, it simply assumes that there is a rational explanation that does not involve a lying God. And it is not "atheistic". You keep forgetting the fact that the first people to refute the flood myth were early European Christian geologists.

Why would anyone who believes in Jesus Christ be conned into such thinking.

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. - Psalm 14:1

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. - Psalm 53:1

Don't be conned by The No God Assumption used by Atheistic Origin Science .

But no one thinks in their heart that there is no God. You see that is another verse that you do not understand. "In your heart" means emotionally. There is nothing emotional about the realization that there probably is no god and if there is one it is definitely not the evil and lying incompetent God that you worship. Boy if there ever was a case that shows how Pascal's wager fails it would be you. If there is a God he would be far more likely to reject someone that claimed that he was a lying, incompetent,, evil murderer than someone that simply did not believe that he existed because there is no evidence for a God. Your version of God is not even trustworthy. Since you keep claiming that he is a liar why believe any of his promises?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

But there was no flood, whenever you mention the flood you are calling God a liar, Perhaps we can discuss that later but I am sure that the science will be denied by you again.



Oh yes, of course! How silly of me. Whenever you run into a problem that you cannot solve your answer is magic.


That is just another story in the Bible. It is not evidence.

No, it simply assumes that there is a rational explanation that does not involve a lying God. And it is not "atheistic". You keep forgetting the fact that the first people to refute the flood myth were early European Christian geologists.

But no one thinks in their heart that there is no God. You see that is another verse that you do not understand. "In your heart" means emotionally. There is nothing emotional about the realization that there probably is no god and if there is one it is definitely not the evil and lying incompetent God that you worship. Boy if there ever was a case that shows how Pascal's wager fails it would be you. If there is a God he would be far more likely to reject someone that claimed that he was a lying, incompetent,, evil murderer than someone that simply did not believe that he existed because there is no evidence for a God. Your version of God is not even trustworthy. Since you keep claiming that he is a liar why believe any of his promises?

You see all your answers were evaluated fairly and they fell short of reality.

As to the Bible, I know the word of God quite well.

And of course you are falsely accusing again because all the truth is against the false theories of evolution And billions of year.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You see all your answers were evaluated fairly and they fell short of reality.

As to the Bible, I know the word of God quite well.

And of course you are falsely accusing again because all the truth is against the false theories of evolution And billions of year.

LOL! No they were not. At least not be you. You do not have that ability.

And you are misusing the word "know" again. All that you have is mere belief. Knowledge is demonstrable and you have only demonstrated ignorance here when it comes to the sciences or even your book of myths.

Lastly, no. All of the scientific evidence supports evolution. Creation "scientists" are all incompetent cowards when it comes to their creationist beliefs. There are some creationists that have actually done work as scientists. They have published real articles in real peer reviewed publications. But when it comes to their rather idiotic beliefs they cannot right an article that even passes basic peer review.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

LOL! No they were not. At least not be you. You do not have that ability.

And you are misusing the word "know" again. All that you have is mere belief. Knowledge is demonstrable and you have only demonstrated ignorance here when it comes to the sciences or even your book of myths.

Lastly, no. All of the scientific evidence supports evolution. Creation "scientists" are all incompetent cowards when it comes to their creationist beliefs. There are some creationists that have actually done work as scientists. They have published real articles in real peer reviewed publications. But when it comes to their rather idiotic beliefs they cannot right an article that even passes basic peer review.

There is evidence of anything older than about 6000 years, without an assumption.
You failed to meet the challenge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence of anything older than about 6000 years, without an assumption.
You failed to meet the challenge.

There is no evidence for your God even if one uses an assumption. You failed the challenge.

And you never properly defined what you meant by "assumption". You only used a circular argument.

It appears that you cheated. Until you show that you have not you failed your own challenge from the very start.