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

[McBell]

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

they are dead and buried

At this point one has wonder who it is you are trying to convince...

 

[SavedByTheLord]

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."

So?

God did it and it is recorded in the infallible Bible.

Can you meet the challenge I gave?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I was not surprised at the many opposers to your astute conclusion. Yes, some called physicists and scientists insist that life just happened to happen.

 

[shunyadragon]

The first living population of organisms came about by Natural LAws and natural processes in the ideal environment likely where the first and oldest living organisms were found around ocean floor vents near the spreading zones of early continental drift.

There is nothing random in Nature. Everything takes place within the constraints of Natural Laws,

 

[shunyadragon]

So?

God did it and it is recorded in the infallible Bible.

Can you meet the challenge I gave?

Challenge answered, but do to your religious agenda and nothing between your ears concerning science you are unable to do a simple google search to get the answers.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Challenge answered, but do to your religious agenda and nothing between your ears concerning science you are unable to do a simple google search to get the answers.

Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give real evidence of anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So?

God did it and it is recorded in the infallible Bible.

Can you meet the challenge I gave?

Dude! You never gave a challenge. You do not even seem to understand how to form one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is simple challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give real evidence of anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

That is not a proper challenge. What do you mean by "no assumptions allowed"? You need to be specific on what is and what is not an assumption. Also you would have to demonstrate how your model is free from assumptions otherwise the challenge has not point. It would not prove anything.

So let's work on your "challenge" a bit. There has to be a possibility of an answer otherwise it is merely pseudoscience on your part.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

That is not a proper challenge. What do you mean by "no assumptions allowed"? You need to be specific on what is and what is not an assumption. Also you would have to demonstrate how your model is free from assumptions otherwise the challenge has not point. It would not prove anything.

So let's work on your "challenge" a bit. There has to be a possibility of an answer otherwise it is merely pseudoscience on your part.

No assumptions mean you cannot assume something.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No assumptions mean you cannot assume something.

Sorry, but now you are using circular reasoning. What do you mean by "assume"? Give a clear definition in your own words.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sorry, but now you are using circular reasoning. What do you mean by "assume"? Give a clear definition in your own words.

You have a false assumption, ditch it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have a false assumption, ditch it.

Really? What was my false assumption?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Another thing came to mind...When an American rabbi once asked Einstein, “Do you believe in God?” he replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.” hmm. It's interesting but I doubt from my reading about Einstein that he thought he could have a personal relationship with that God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Another thing came to mind...When an American rabbi once asked Einstein, “Do you believe in God?” he replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists.” hmm. It's interesting but I doubt from my reading about Einstein that he thought he could have a personal relationship with that God.

"Spinoza's God" is essentially the naturally running universe. In other words there is very little difference if any between that sort of belief and atheism:

Spinoza's God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

The Enlightenment thinker was branded a heretic, but his philosophy overflows with subtle religious insights

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

 

[SavedByTheLord]

"Spinoza's God" is essentially the naturally running universe. In other words there is very little difference if any between that sort of belief and atheism:

Spinoza's God: Einstein believed in it, but what was it?

The Enlightenment thinker was branded a heretic, but his philosophy overflows with subtle religious insights

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk

You mean like the one God created, of course.

 

[setarcos]

Out of curiosity, which ones would that be?

Roger Penrose's calculation of the initial precise fine tuning of the universe being 1 in 10^10^123 for one.
Of note: He showed that there were 10^10^101 configurations of mass energy configurations (entropy) that correspond to highly ordered universes like ours. The 10^10^123 number corresponds to the # of universes generated that were black-hole dominated incompatible to our life.
Now, if your familiar with exponentials then you'll see that the one number is so much larger than than other, even though the other is a large number, that it virtually renders that other number a non entity. Never the less, science being probabilistic is one reason I tend toward intelligent design. And there are other finely tuned contingent properties of this universe to consider... The various cosmological constants, the universes finely tuned expansion rate which itself is dependent upon the fine tuning of other constants etc. etc.
One other thing is the functional specificity of information "digitally" encoded within the DNA molecule. Seems, from what I've studied on the matter, it would take a natural miracle (miracles aren't natural by the way) in order to create a functional DNA molecule through natural means.
Keep in mind, as I do and acknowledge that these things are still being argued amongst the scientists.

Also, don't forget that "astronimically improbable events" actually happen all the time.

That they happen all the time isn't an argument for them being natural.
If anything, its an argument against them all being natural since the more astronomically improbably natural events that happen the higher the degree of improbability that they are natural will be.

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

I don't think we can affirm 0 since we haven't shown how inviolable natural "law" is. Like I've said, science has only shown the probability of a law being a law by past experience/experimentation. Predicted future experience IS probability in action. It isn't a law. Even a charlatan spiritualist can be right in their predictions. We can't determine if they were right because of their abilities or they were right because they got "lucky". But we can calculate the probability of them being right about the future again based on the data we collect about their being correct in the past.
The more we find them correct about their future predictions in the past the higher the probability they will be expected to be correct again.

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

Depends on what low probability your talking about?
What I'm saying is that there have been experiments proposing how such things may have happened purely naturally given known constants and variables.
The probability of those things happening in the way the experiments suggest is then calculated. Probability since its guesswork.
To date, as far as I'm aware those probabilities are low and in some cases have been proven to be virtually zero and therefore abandoned as unviable.
However, the addition of some sort of intelligently directed interference in the process would raise the probability of success substantially.
The fact that we'll never know exactly how it happened is a given since no one living or dead witnessed the thing.
I'm just erring on the side of probability since with each attempt and fail or calculated low probability of success for a possible natural explanation the probability of an unnatural explanation increases.
Some here would rather insist on the low probability natural explanation merely because they believe ONLY A NATURAL explanation is possible. Which itself is an illogical position to take.

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

There is a God hypothesis, though like much of science it is based in probability until such time as it becomes falsified or proven.
I am here using this definition of hypothesis...

hypothesis​

---

noun,plural hy·poth·e·ses [hahy-poth-uh-seez, hi-].

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis ) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
   
   The proposition is that some sort of super intelligence was involved in directing the creation of life. The specified group of phenomena is the observation of existent life in its simplest form and the scientifically determined available ingredients in formulating the first life. The investigation is in determining the degree of probability of intelligent design versus purely natural process. One may falsify the hypothesis as used here by showing a higher probability that purely natural processes took place than not. Unfortunately neither position can be proven here by mere human endeavors alone. But I think the probabilities can be.
   If you accept abiogenesis as a theory or even evolution as a theory both of which are based on unproven and arguable hypothesis then I wouldn't expect you to have trouble believing that there can be a God hypothesis.

3. For example, a creation that occurred 6000 years ago is incompatible with dating methods showing the earth, and life, is far older

I wouldn't care to disagree with scientific appraisal with how old the earth is except in light of being shown how or if science might be wrong in its dating methods which could be shown to be more probably true than not.
Until such time I will side with an old earth presumption.

Perhaps the reason for that is that in science you are actually expected to support your claims with valid evidence

That's irrelevant. I'm only here concerned with the validity of what you've stated. I would hope that you are aware of the limitations of science in consideration of the entirety of reality. Science cannot investigate one-off events let alone personal experience except in retrospective speculation. That doesn't prove they don't happen.
You can't prove to me with science what you were thinking about at a specific time yesterday. Would that alone invalidate your claim about what you were thinking about?
Lack of support for a claim does not make that claim false. The most you can do in the absence of providing proof to the contrary is assume the claims to be false. That is unscientific and illogical.

in the general public, especially on matters of religion, you can get away with making bare claims that have no evidence at all.

That's the nature of the beast we all have to deal with because unfortunately people can be deceptive. They can be down right evil and liars. But that does not nor cannot invalidate all unverifiable claims. I would say that barring putting yourself in personal danger one should shelve such unverified personal claims until such time as they might be verified, or you feel spiritually compelled for whatever reason to tend towards belief in the absences of being falsified.

There are a lot of gullible folks out there that will believe pretty much anything, regardless of evidence.

True. Including the evidence they think they have from science.
Gullibility by itself is also irrelevant as far as unverified person claims go in establishing truth or falsity. Its only the occasions where after the fact some sort of harm has been done that we tend to decry someone as gullible.
The fact is life would be very difficult indeed if we were to always wait for scientific validity before believing a claim. Imagine those people that didn't evacuate the building after a bomber called in to say they placed a bomb in the building and it will go off in ten minutes for instance.
Imagine if we didn't believe the officers claim that we would be put in jail for committing a crime. Imagine if we dismissed our neighbors claim that she saw a bear in the backyard earlier and so let our child out to play in the back yard anyway without checking etc. etc.
Most of our lives are lived by claims not by verification of those claims prior to belief.

Claims without evidence ... scientists don't even get out of bed for that.

Ohhh but I'm afraid they do. I suppose not a lot of them will admit it though.

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?

What's unnatural is the control.
Freezing water may be a natural process. How that freezing is brought about may not be.

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

It was a comment on your ironic claim that none have witnessed God - even though you cannot know that for sure and there are those that claim to have - in light of the fact that none have witnessed abiogenesis.
The statement basically came off as biased and a tad hypocritical in my opinion.
And we know bias usually leads us astray not towards the truth. Though that can rarely be helped in most of us it seems.

 

[setarcos]

"Spinoza's God" is essentially the naturally running universe. In other words there is very little difference if any between that sort of belief and atheism:

I don't think you've quite understood Spinoza. Let alone the article about him referenced. For instance....
From the article,
"Spinoza’s philosophy does not trivialise God in the slightest. It is true that in his conception God is intimately bound up with nature. But just because God is not separate from the world that does not mean He is identical to it."
Spinoza's God has sentience.

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

I will continue to object to your use of "Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage." By definition, there is nothing hypothetical about the theories and hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. This just creates confusion, The fact that there are unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis does not mean we are at any sort of hypothetical stage,

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think you've quite understood Spinoza. Let alone the article about him referenced. For instance....
From the article,
"Spinoza’s philosophy does not trivialise God in the slightest. It is true that in his conception God is intimately bound up with nature. But just because God is not separate from the world that does not mean He is identical to it."
Spinoza's God has sentience.

Does it? I do not fully agree with the author of that work.

How would we know if Spinoza's God had intelligence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will continue to object to your use of "Abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage." By definition, there is nothing hypothetical about the theories and hypotheses concerning abiogenesis. This just creates confusion, The fact that there are unanswered questions concerning abiogenesis does not mean we are at any sort of hypothetical stage,

I do extend the benefit of the doubt too much at times for my opponents that do not seem to even know how to do so themselves. And I do also point out that there is ample evidence for abiogenesis and none for the creationist point of view.