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

[SavedByTheLord]

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

That would be the theory of evolution.
What was the first living creature?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That would be the theory of evolution.
What was the first living creature?

I see that you're still at it even after saying that you believe evolution is false and can't be defended.

So what is the point of repeatedly asking these questions about evolution, which you claim isn't real and can't be defended?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I see that you're still at it even after saying that you believe evolution is false and can't be defended.

So what is the point of repeatedly asking these questions about evolution, which you claim isn't real and can't be defended?

For you and others.

 

[setarcos]

Lightning was some god getting angry, planets were pushed around in their orbits by God's power and so on.

I don't think the ancient version of "blaming the Gods for phenomena" was understood in quite the same way we "less"? primitive people believe.
More and more discoveries are showing that our ancient ancestors weren't quite the all pervasive ignorant religious zealots that we tend to portray them as. There's no proof that they looked at some unfamiliar phenomenon and simply believed a God did it. There's little proof that the creation stories told etc. were to be taken literally rather than metaphorically. I think some truth has been taken and mythologized over the years.
Why would we think that a primitive culture would automatically jump supernatural causes when nature was all they knew? That would be quite an abstractive jump in their thinking. Unless....

Once god/s was considered to be directly responsible for just about everything.

And....IF a creator God exists then it is. Literally.

Over the years, science has shown that we don't need to attribute these things directly to god/s. We know about electricity and gravity.

Science has shown no such thing. What science HAS done is show us in a very very limited manner how these things relate to each other and function within this fishbowl universe we find ourselves in. You think that because we think we've put a few pieces together and they fit nicely that we don't "need" the manufacturer of the puzzle to do that even though with the manufacturer there would be no pieces to put together? Even though without the manufacturer of your glasses you wouldn't be able to see to put those pieces together? I'm being speculatively metaphorical here by the way.
Again, in a very very limited fashion we've discovered phenomenon we've labeled electricity and gravity. This doesn't show us reality. It shows us our experience of reality. And only within our little fishbowl. This lil universe of ours may just be a stage in which we act out our little God given talents. An amusement for our benefit or Gods. Something to give us purpose to discover and ponder upon. A stepping stone to the actual reality found off stage for those lucky enough to see it.

Over the years, the number of things that still need some non-scientific explanation has steadily shrunk and what is left are the "gaps".

The problem as I see it, is that people forget that those gaps which concern the workings of this universe were meant to be filled by science for our survival and pleasure of discovery. As concerns God there IS no gaps because God would be seamlessly everywhere. For science there are gaps because scientists are full of ignorance. And for those gaps filled in by science, that is exactly what science and our gift of rationality was meant to do - discover, take pleasure in, survive and be stewards of creation.
Its not the so called gaps in our understanding that Gods presence hides within, if anything its what's been filled in that holds clues to a creator.
Yet those clues...lacking understandable proofs...will continuously stand in interpretation according to ones worldview until such time as the creator God, IF it exists, sees fit to allow us to KNOW reality instead of merely interpreting our experience.

It's interesting also to note how the description of God has changed to fit the gaps. God doesn't talk in burning bushes any more, or through donkeys.

Who says he doesn't? Millions of people continuously to the present have experiences they try to describe which seemingly transformed their lives. The rest of humanity simply writes them off as delusional or fooled into misinterpreting natural phenomena. I would imagine though that God speaks to the times with the chosen methods of the times when God deems it necessary. And those who have ears will hear and eyes will see....etc. (paraphrasing).

retreated outside the physical universe too.

Not sure what you mean by this. In Christian belief this would be nonsensical. God is in all, through all, and sustains all.

The "gaps" you see in science tend to be at the boundaries of knowledge, not too surprising as those boundaries are being pushed back all the time.

I would quite say pushed back. They seem to be being revised all the time more than pushed back. Especially as we are progressively capable of experiencing more and more of reality via new tools, instruments, and what have you. One clear fact is though is that what we think we know now has only created further questions about reality.
What I think we have progressed in though is discovering that "Hey! Every time we throw this ball against the wall it bounces back! Lets figure out different ways to use that fact!"
Of course then along comes an experience of ball behavior that defies what we thought we knew.

We may not be sure what gravity is, but we can measure how it works with great precision. And there's no doubt it's not God directly doing it.

This is what I mean by scientific hubris. What we are measuring is how we expect gravity to behave in the future. Of course if we take our measurements now and extend them into the far past or far future in consideration of some current observed phenomena sometimes a bit of tweaking and a lot of assumption has to come into play for it all to work.
Incidentally there have been occasionally anomalous results from those measurements which are usually shelved, passed off as an error of the measurer or measuring device or simply ignored. AND...there IS some doubt. There are many many highly intelligent and qualified people from all kinds of job descriptions and lifestyles including reputable scientists that ARE questioning whether or not a "super intelligence" is behind some of these things as more and more is learned about reality.

The presumption that the physical world behaves in a constant manner over time (and space) is presumed. But that's a reasonable assumption, confirmed (as an assumption) every time airplanes don't spontaneously fall out of the sky and the Earth keeps trundling round in its orbit without falling into the sun or flying off into space.

I agree. The only difference between us here I suppose is that I believe our presumptive discoveries will hold true as long as God sustains their truth which enables our survival within the creation it made for us, while you, I'm guessing, believe those presumptions will continue to hold true
in the future, regardless of proof, because of our past experiences.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

And as I've said...a poor argument or misapplied argument is what keeps the phrase derogatorily going.

Frankenstein is like the abiogenesis myth. Just shoot in some lightning.

 

[Kfox]

And of course random miracles would not lead to intelligent life.

Of course they can! That’s the thing about miracles; anything is possible

Only an intelligent Creator then is the explanation.
So 2 can play but evolution without God loses.

Evolution has nothing to do with creation; evolution is about how things that already exist change over time. Perhaps that’s your problem with evolution; you don’t know what it is about.

 

[Kfox]

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

How do you know what is or is not possible? Our most brilliant scientists acknowledge to only know approx 5% of the Universe; (the other 95% they have no clue about) and those scientists who only know 5% know much more than you and I combined; so how do you know what is possible concerning the 95% nobody knows about?

The atheists have been deceived into believing that the first creature could come into existence by random chance.

Who are these atheists who believe this?

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.

Your God has never been observed; Simple analysis shows he is impossible; there is no record of him existing
So therefore theists has the burden of proof (2 can play that game)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Already have. Let me know what you think.

Big Bang is dead.

Redshift anomalies and other things that invalidate the Big Bang expansion

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ft_Data_and_the_Myth_of_Cosmological_Distance
Click on see the full text.

Anomalies in the count of low red shift quasars.

Anomalies in the Counts of Low Redshift Quasars

https://assa.saao.ac.za/wp-content/...liffe-A-review-of-anomalous-redshift-data.pdf

Redshift Anomalies and the Big Bang – Anthony Beckett

Is a new anomaly affecting the entire Universe?

Galaxies and the Universe - Alternate Approaches and the Redshift Controversy

These two shows that today’s age estimate is a farce. The very exact number may be off by 100%. Of course if 100% is the error, then -100% puts it at about 6000 years.

'Tired light' might make the universe twice as old as we thought

Scientists have revisited the disproven light ageing hypothesis, which suggests the universe has been around for almost 27 billion years

More problems with the Big Bang Theory and the redshift explanation.

Plasma Cosmology .net

Exploring Cosmic Voids and Anomalies: The Mystery of the Cold Spot

Large Scale Cosmological Anomalies and Inhomogeneous Dark Energy

What if the Universe Is NOT Expanding?

The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique [Part I] [Whole] - Apologetics Press

Galaxy Making Stars at the Edge of the Universe and Other “Surprises”

https://act.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf1171/files/a9r1o5g11h_6viqvc_3u4_0.pdf

The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion

Quasar with enormous redshift found embedded in nearby spiral galaxy with far lower redshift

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-bust-up-auid-2253

Web telescope
Too many spiral galaxies in the early universe.
James Webb telescope spots thousands of Milky Way lookalikes that 'shouldn't exist' swarming across the early universe

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/james-webb-telescope-spots-thousands-173000173.html

Why are you so obsessed by this?

Let's just move on. Let's pretend for the sake of discussion that Big Bang theory has been succesfully disproven.
Now what? Make your fallacious point already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That would be the theory of evolution.
What was the first living creature?

Let's move on. Let's also pretend evolution is disproven.
So for the sake of discussion and moving on, we pretend both big bang theory and evolution are incorrect.

Now what? Make your fallacious point already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Frankenstein is like the abiogenesis myth. Just shoot in some lightning.

Ok ok. Once more let's move on already.
Let's pretend for the sake of discussion that big bang theory, evolution and abiogenesis are all proven incorrect.

Now what? Make you fallacious point already.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And of course random miracles would not lead to intelligent life. Only an intelligent Creator then is the explanation.

1. bare claims without evidence are not an "explanation".

2. false dichotomies and arguments from ignorance, are not a proper way to argue your case. It's a good way to end up with a god of the gaps though.

So 2 can play but evolution without God loses.

Let's move on. Let's pretend big bang theory, evolution and abiogenesis are disproven.
Now what? God of the gaps?

I am glad that you have admitted that evolution needs miracles to rescue it.

Nobody admitted such. How rude of your to pretend otherwise.

 

[setarcos]

Calling a god of the gaps argument a god of the gaps argument is derogatory?

I'm sorry, my experience on here tends towards the derogatory from people. Arguments for or against a position shouldn't be derogatory, they should be neutral as far as the truth is concerned. So derogatory was probably the wrong term to use.

 

[setarcos]

Frankenstein is like the abiogenesis myth. Just shoot in some lightning.

Okay, that's a loose comparison I guess but you have to know your audience. This is an emotional topic for many. Cut the science into smaller chunks in order to build up your ideas into what can be agreed upon. If you can't get your audience past the smaller chunks in agreement there's no sense in throwing the whole meal at them.
For the record, I am a Christian that believes in an existent creator God. This opinion has not been established scientifically it has been established spiritually. And I am able to sustain this spiritual opinion because science has yet to convince me otherwise. If I ever come to a point where I am able to see an established contradiction between science and my faith then I will be forced to change my opinion.
I've said it before...I believe rationality and the resultant scientific tools we use are for our edification and survival in the physical universe. While religion is for the same in the spiritual.
That being said, I also believe that those two modes of experience are compatible in the one person and may occasionally overlap each other with the spiritual recognizing that it must not be rationally contradictive and the scientific recognizing that it cannot rationally tell us all there is to reality no matter how hard it tries.

 

[setarcos]

evolution is about how things that already exist change over time.

I think the confusion is in agreeing what is changing over time and what can be produced as a result of that change.
For instance...I've changed over time. I've gotten older, I've acquired more knowledge, I've gained scars. You would certainly say that I've evolved from a child into an adult - one can hope - but would you say I'm the same person?

How do you know what is or is not possible? Our most brilliant scientists acknowledge to only know approx 5% of the Universe; (the other 95% they have no clue about) and those scientists who only know 5% know much more than you and I combined; so how do you know what is possible concerning the 95% nobody knows about?

I think this happens a lot on here. everyone wants to cram what they think they know down the other persons throat all at once.
I agree to an extent with SavedByTheLord about abiogenesis. Except the part where he claims that it is impossible.
I can't say its impossible because I can't prove, and no one else can, that it isn't.
In consideration of the question of abiogenesis we might ask ourselves how we might tell the difference between the event being purely natural and the event being God inspired. It may very well be that a God who has created a universe that is sustained in rationality and suited to scientific enquiry would from the beginning ensure an inevitable but apparently naturally derived event would take place. There would be no way for us to tell beyond Gods personal revelation.
That being said, there are certain scientifically discovered natural events that have been determined to be highly, sometimes "astronomically" improbably natural.
Since science basically relies on probability for its presumptions one would think that a hypothesis that accounts for that probability the best would be the favored one over another that does so poorly. That seems to be what SavedByTheLord's position is. They've taken the hypothesis they feel most strongly about with they feel most aligns with what science has discovered so thusfar. That is that life arising on earth or anywhere else in our universe by purely natural causes given our known scientific discoveries to date is a very very tough nut to crack and extremely improbable. Note: Not shown impossible. See above.
Me, being a Christian I tend to go with the God hypothesis.

Your God has never been observed

Well...I've got to note here that many many people would beg to differ here. I guess I can assume you mean by you or those your acquainted with. I would like to note here though that while there are those that claim to have interacted personally with God, no one in the scientific community has claimed to have witnessed abiogenesis. Some have claimed to have formulated a process whereby life associated molecular structures have been created naturally (if you consider observations in a controlled lab environment natural) but none can claim to have witnessed abiogenesis yet. That is an organism we can truly say is alive.

Simple analysis shows he is impossible

At this point I think you must be being sarcastic to prove a point instead of serious?

there is no record of him existing

Again, this is either sarcasm or your mistaken. There is record of course. Whether or not that record is accurate is a different matter.

Man its a gorgeous day where I am...hope your enjoying yours. They're coming few and far between seems these days.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That being said, there are certain scientifically discovered natural events that have been determined to be highly, sometimes "astronomically" improbably natural.

Out of curiosity, which ones would that be?
Also, don't forget that "astronimically improbable events" actually happen all the time.

Since science basically relies on probability for its presumptions one would think that a hypothesis that accounts for that probability the best would be the favored one over another that does so poorly. That seems to be what SavedByTheLord's position is.

The probability of his proposition is 0 since it requires violation / suspension of natural law.

They've taken the hypothesis they feel most strongly about with they feel most aligns with what science has discovered so thusfar. That is that life arising on earth or anywhere else in our universe by purely natural causes given our known scientific discoveries to date is a very very tough nut to crack and extremely improbable.

Not knowing / understaond how something occurs or can occur, does not equate to a low probability.

Me, being a Christian I tend to go with the God hypothesis.

There is no such hypothesis. Hypothesis require independent verifiability / falsifiability. It requires testable predictions naturally flowing from it.
Gods are unfalsifiable notions. Untestable, unverifiable.

The "support" that is given for it is "science doesn't know", which turns it into an argument from ignorance / god of the gaps.

It can only be rejected at face value.
Many of the evidence we do have is also not compatible with many aspects of it (also depending on which flavor of creationism one is taunting).
For example, a creation that occurred 6000 years ago is incompatible with dating methods showing the earth, and life, is far older.

Well...I've got to note here that many many people would beg to differ here. I guess I can assume you mean by you or those your acquainted with. I would like to note here though that while there are those that claim to have interacted personally with God, no one in the scientific community has claimed to have witnessed abiogenesis.

Perhaps the reason for that is that in science you are actually expected to support your claims with valid evidence, whereas in the general public, especially on matters of religion, you can get away with making bare claims that have no evidence at all. There are a lot of gullible folks out there that will believe pretty much anything, regardless of evidence.

Science doesn't work like that off course. Claims without evidence ... scientists don't even get out of bed for that.

Some have claimed to have formulated a process whereby life associated molecular structures have been created naturally (if you consider observations in a controlled lab environment natural)

Why wouldn't observations in a controlled environment be natural?
Is the process of freezing "unnatural" when it happens inside a freezer, which is a controlled environment?

but none can claim to have witnessed abiogenesis yet. That is an organism we can truly say is alive.

So?
How does that have any bearing on creationist claims?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Out of curiosity, which ones would that be?
Also, don't forget that "astronimically improbable events" actually happen all the time.



The probability of his proposition is 0 since it requires violation / suspension of natural law.



Not knowing / understaond how something occurs or can occur, does not equate to a low probability.




There is no such hypothesis. Hypothesis require independent verifiability / falsifiability. It requires testable predictions naturally flowing from it.
Gods are unfalsifiable notions. Untestable, unverifiable.

The "support" that is given for it is "science doesn't know", which turns it into an argument from ignorance / god of the gaps.

It can only be rejected at face value.
Many of the evidence we do have is also not compatible with many aspects of it (also depending on which flavor of creationism one is taunting).
For example, a creation that occurred 6000 years ago is incompatible with dating methods showing the earth, and life, is far older.



Perhaps the reason for that is that in science you are actually expected to support your claims with valid evidence, whereas in the general public, especially on matters of religion, you can get away with making bare claims that have no evidence at all. There are a lot of gullible folks out there that will believe pretty much anything, regardless of evidence.

Science doesn't work like that off course. Claims without evidence ... scientists don't even get out of bed for that.




Why wouldn't observations in a controlled environment be natural?
Is the process of freezing "unnatural" when it happens inside a freezer, which is a controlled environment?



So?
How does that have any bearing on creationist claims?

Abiogenesis is impossible, has never been observed and I have proved it could never happen.

 

[McBell]

Abiogenesis is impossible, has never been observed and I have proved it could never happen.

Two bold empty claims and one flat out lie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is impossible, has never been observed and I have proved it could never happen.

Not observing something does not make it impossible. No one has seen God. By your own "logic" that makes God impossible. And no, you have never proved anything. Oh wait wait. yes you have. You have proved that you do not understand logic and that you do not have a level of scientific literacy that is past the fifth grade level.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not observing something does not make it impossible. No one has seen God. By your own "logic" that makes God impossible. And no, you have never proved anything. Oh wait wait. yes you have. You have proved that you do not understand logic and that you do not have a level of scientific literacy that is past the fifth grade level.

I refuted evolution and billions of years using simple scientific facts and logic.

they are dead and buried

 

[Subduction Zone]

I refuted evolution and billions of years using simple scientific facts and logic.

they are dead and buried

No, please. Just quit while you are behind.

But if you really believe that, which I doubt, then you should be talking to the John Templeton Foundation. A very hefty monetary award is yours if your claims are true:

John Templeton Foundation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

" The foundation administers the annual Templeton Prize for achievements in the field of spirituality, including those at the intersection of science and religion. It has an extensive grant-funding program (around $150 million per year as of 2016)[7] aimed at supporting research in physics, biology, psychology, and the social sciences as well as philosophy and theology. It also supports programs related to genetics, "exceptional cognitive talent and genius" and "individual freedom and free markets".[4] The foundation has received both praise and criticism for its awards, regarding both the breadth of their coverage, and ideological perspectives asserted to be associated with them."