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

[Subduction Zone]

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

I see. You are scientifically illiterate. Once again, abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stages. Most of the hard problems have been answered. But not all of them. It is not very often taught in high schools since it is a rather advanced topic.

As to it being a "fraud". You just crossed a line. You need to justify that claim. All that you have are arguments that demonstrate your own ignorance.

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

No, it doesn't. It only shows that you have no understanding of the topic. All of your claims are nonsense.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I see. You are scientifically illiterate. Once again, abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stages. Most of the hard problems have been answered. But not all of them. It is not very often taught in high schools since it is a rather advanced topic.

As to it being a "fraud". You just crossed a line. You need to justify that claim. All that you have are arguments that demonstrate your own ignorance.

No, it doesn't. It only shows that you have no understanding of the topic. All of your claims are nonsense.

why doesn‘t the scientific community make a general announcement that they have no idea what the first living creature was, that they may never know, that it may indeed have been impossible. Stock brokers make disclosure. The Medical community discloses potential side effects.

Also, they do not know how that first living creature ever survived or reproduced. They also have no clue what the first offspring was, or the 3rd offspring or the 1,000,000th offspring was.

 

[Audie]

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

And know so very much! More than any
scientist or mathmatician! And and proof of god!

 

[Audie]

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.

You are trying to teach the fraud but
found an audience who isnt so slow
as those can fool.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are trying to teach the fraud but
found an audience who isnt so slow
as those can fool.

What fraud is that?

 

[Audie]

What fraud is that?

Everything you wrote

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Everything you wrote

What specifically?

 

[F1fan]

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.

So are you claiming that God must have created all things, and don't so deliberately? Nothing that exists is a random chance?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So are you claiming that God must have created all things, and don't so deliberately? Nothing that exists is a random chance?

A very large specific sequence of different types of amino defies coming to be by random chance.

 

[F1fan]

why doesn‘t the scientific community make a general announcement that they have no idea what the first living creature was, that they may never know, that it may indeed have been impossible. Stock brokers make disclosure. The Medical community discloses potential side effects.

Also, they do not know how that first living creature ever survived or reproduced. They also have no clue what the first offspring was, or the 3rd offspring or the 1,000,000th offspring was.

Who told you this?

 

[F1fan]

A very large specific sequence of different types of amino defies coming to be by random chance.

How do you know? Are you an expert in science? I notice you make claims, but offer us no evidence, so why should we believe some random person on the internet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

why doesn‘t the scientific community make a general announcement that they have no idea what the first living creature was, that they may never know, that it may indeed have been impossible. Stock brokers make disclosure. The Medical community discloses potential side effects.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Not knowing all of the details does not mean or even imply impossible. The evidence for abiogenesis is very strong. We do not need to know absolutely how the life formed naturally to have a reasonable belief that that is what happened. All that is needed is evidence for the general process. Let's say that someone that you know traveled from the northwest corner of a city near you to the southeastern corner. With a city there are usually countless different possible paths. Does that mean that your friend did not travel by some mundane means but that he was picked up by a genie and carried from one corner to the other? Frankly I am not going with the I Dream of Jeannie route.

Also, they do not know how that first living creature ever survived or reproduced. They also have no clue what the first offspring was, or the 3rd offspring or the 1,000,000th offspring was.

So what?

Why do you think that matters? As long as we have evidence that supports a natural process that is all that matters. Once again your seem to prefer magic. What is your evidence for magic?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Who told you this?


How do you know? Are you an expert in science? I notice you makes claims, but offer us no evidence, so why should we believe some random person on the internet?

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.

 

[F1fan]

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.

None of this offsets your lack of evidence for what you claim. You migth know a little bit of science but you don't know how to argue your claims. Let's note that nothing in fact, reason, and science suggests religious concepts are true in any way. Trying to appeal to a supernatural as a cause is LESS plausible than natural causes and effects, regardless of the math. We know what you are up to here, we've seen it before.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A very large specific sequence of different types of amino defies coming to be by random chance.

You just made another mistake. You are assuming that only a "large specific sequence of different types of amino acids" are necessary. You are making a typical creationist mistake of conflating a result with a goal. There does not appear to be one needed specific sequence. In fact if you talk with an expert in the field they could probably explain how specific sequences are not necessary. I know that when it comes to amino acids and DNA that some sequences can be made by more than one specific order of nucleic acids.

You should think of the analogy of the lottery. The odds of one specific person winning is very very low. But the odds of someone winning is very very high. Yes, the odds of "humans" evolving is almost zero. That does not matter since the odds of something evolving is almost one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I already explained why this is an error so no, you do not not "know quite a bit of science, math, and logic".

 

[HonestJoe]

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

Nothing reliant on chance is impossible, even if it is highly unlikely.

A first living creature...

Out of interest, are you thinking of the first self-replicating cells or the first complex organisms?

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

That is a massive leap of logic. It's like saying "If I can't have killed JFK therefore you must have". Even if you're asserting that there must have been some intentional outside influence, there is no reason to assume that is a god, let alone the specific god you happen to believe in.

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.

Atheism is just about not believing in any god or gods, it doesn't have anything to do with the origins of life and evolution is about changes in living things, distinct from abiogenesis which is about the initial origins of life. If you're looking to challenge or condemn either atheists or "evolutionists", you're doing it entirely the wrong way.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I already explained why this is an error so no, you do not not "know quite a bit of science, math, and logic".

What exactly is the error?
What was the first living creature?
Why is abiogenesis never observed?
Have scientists made a first living creature just from a random chemical mixture, without using any living creature, and produced a living creature that can survive in the same environment? It would also have to have offspring.

 

[Audie]

I already explained why this is an error so no, you do not not "know quite a bit of science, math, and logic".

Just another in the dreary procession of
scientific illiterates who cut n paste some
nonsense from a creationist site and then
post it somewhere as their own " wisdom ".

The plan is usually to keep repeating unto
the limits of exasperation, the return to
creoland boasting of how he argued a team
of evo-atheists into the ground, none could prove him
wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Just another in the dreary procession of
scientific illiterates who cut n paste some
nonsense from a creationist site and then
post it somewhere as their own " wisdom ".

The plan is usually to keep repeating unto
the limits of exasperation, the return to
creoland boasting of how he argued a team
of evo-atheists into the ground, none could prove him
wrong.

actually I did not cut and paste. It is just basics science, math and logic.