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

[SavedByTheLord]

Just because the answers have not been written to appease your needs, does not make genesis the correct model.

When people ask about the missing link or gap of bone evidence for the evolution of species, I entertain the idea of telling the person to pick up a shovel and go find them. Participate rather than whine.

Just as you would not be here if your parents did not do the wild thing. But you could be alive because of an accident!

Noted

 

[McBell]

Evolution is the Theory of Nothing because they cannot answer some very simple questions.

Where did the universe come from?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect.

It also violates every law of conservation too.

If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

If that thing always, existed that violates the law of increasing entropy.

If that thing has not always existed what was there before the thing that was prior our universe to come into being?

Please continue this until you get something that has always been.

And then that will violate the law of increasing entropy.

Where did the laws of nature come from?

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?

Where did all energy come from?

Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?

Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many codons was it? When did it come into being?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?

If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?

What was the energy source for these reactions?

Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years/

How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?

What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself?

Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.

If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

If it was RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

STILL waiting for you explain the questions and how they will destroy evolution.

Sure am glad I am not holding my breath for them

 

[McBell]

I already learned that garbage.
I also know a lot of science, math and logic

Two bold empty claims that are not supported by the evidence.

 

[McBell]

I think anyone that has been involved in these discussions between evidence-based science and belief-based assumption, for any length of time, recognize the methodology and that there is only a limited value in maintaining engagement--if it can be called that.

I find the metaphor of pigeon chess to be highly illustrative of what I've witnessed.

I wonder how long ago those replying have given up and are merely replying to see how long before they fly off to claim victory?

I mean even his choir bailed....

 

[Bthoth]

Two bold empty claims that are not supported by the evidence.

The whole creationist model is defended by a bunch of gaslighting

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I already learned that garbage.
I also know a lot of science, math and logic

Really? When do you suppose you might let us see some of that? You don't have to hold back.

 

[Trailblazer]

Evolution is the Theory of Nothing because they cannot answer some very simple questions.

Where did the universe come from?

If the explanation is the Bing Bang with or without inflation, what was there before that?

If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then that breaks cause and effect.

It also violates every law of conservation too.

If there was something before that, what caused the thing that was before the Big Bang to come into being?

If that thing always, existed that violates the law of increasing entropy.

If that thing has not always existed what was there before the thing that was prior our universe to come into being?

Please continue this until you get something that has always been.

And then that will violate the law of increasing entropy.

Where did the laws of nature come from?

Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?

Where did all energy come from?

Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?

Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many codons was it? When did it come into being?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

In clay or mud? What protected it from UV rays? What was the composition of the atmosphere at that time?

If it was in water, how did the amino acids keep from being dissipated by the water?

What was the energy source for these reactions?

Where there any enzymes in it? Which ones? Certain required reactions need enzymes as catalysts. If not, the reaction may take a vast number of years. Surely the primitive thing could not last more than a minute much less than many years/

How did it survive? Where did the protective layer come from? What was the protected layer? How did that part get reproduced?

What was its food source? How did it remove waste? How did it repair itself?

Please explain how it was ever able to reproduce itself.

If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

If it was RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

I believe in evolution, and that God set the process of evolution in motion and let it roll.

Perspectives on Evolution | Baha'i Blog

The harmony of science and religion is a fundamental principle of the Baha’i Faith. Abdu’l-Baha declares, “if religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of...

www.bahaiblog.net

The harmony of science and religion is a fundamental principle of the Baha’i Faith. Abdu’l-Baha declares, “if religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition.” 1 . . . . . . .

There are points of unequivocal agreement between Abdu’l-Baha and the science of evolution, such as the principle that humans, like all other species, have evolved over time:

[M]an, in the beginning of his existence and in the womb of the earth, like the embryo in the womb of the mother, gradually grew and developed, and passed from one form to another, from one shape to another, until he appeared with this beauty and perfection, this force and this power… 3​

Abdu’l-Baha asserts that life is “very ancient” and states that man emerged in a much more recent time frame:

… we established before through rational arguments that life on this earth is very ancient — not one or two hundred thousand, or even one or two million years old: it is ancient indeed… 4​

… man was produced ten or a hundred thousand years ago… 5​

Other pronouncements of Abdu’l-Baha do not conform to the prevailing scientific views on evolution. Foremost among these are statements indicating that man is not simply an advanced animal. The Faith teaches that although human beings did evolve over time, we have always been a distinct species:

But at all times, even when the embryo resembled a worm, it was human in potentiality and character, not animal. The forms assumed by the human embryo in its successive changes do not prove that it is animal in its essential character. Throughout this progression there has been a transference of type, a conservation of species or kind. Realizing this we may acknowledge the fact that at one time man was an inmate of the sea, at another period an invertebrate, then a vertebrate and finally a human being standing erect. Though we admit these changes, we cannot say man is an animal. In each one of these stages are signs and evidences of his human existence and destination. 6​

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder how long ago those replying have given up and are merely replying to see how long before they fly off to claim victory?

I mean even his choir bailed....

I'm sort of curious about these things myself.

The pattern seems to be a gish gallop followed by declarations of victory and then repeat the empty claims and declarations randomly in heavy rotation with the occasional demand that others assume the burden of proof for no reason, and again, Victory!

 

[John53]

I'm sort of curious about these things myself.

The pattern seems to be a gish gallop followed by declarations of victory and then repeat the empty claims and declarations randomly in heavy rotation with the occasional demand that others assume the burden of proof for no reason, and again, Victory!

If my hypothesis is correct all postings will cease in about 2 days. Then in another 2 days we will have a new user creating numerous threads along the same lines.

 

[McBell]

I'm sort of curious about these things myself.

The pattern seems to be a gish gallop followed by declarations of victory and then repeat the empty claims and declarations randomly in heavy rotation with the occasional demand that others assume the burden of proof for no reason, and again, Victory!

Personally, I am waiting to see if they bring something new to the table.
I am not holding my breath though.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe you should be looking at the numbers documenting the decline of Abrahamic religion in the West. That's what's evaporating away. There's your institution in crisis.

The decline is in Christianity, not in the other Abrahamic religions.

Christianity, the largest religion in the United States, experienced a 20th-century high of 91% of the total population in 1976.
This declined to 73.7% by 2016 and 64% in 2022.

Decline of Christianity in the Western world - Wikipedia​

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.

From 2000-2010 Islam became the fastest growing religion (1.86 %) and the Baha’i Faith was the second fastest growing religion (1.72%).

Statistics from: Growth of religion - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

The God of the Bible of course.

There is no such thing as the God of the Bible..... there is just God, the God of all the great religions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Was evolution gradual or was it by hopeful monsters?

Gradual.

 

[Trailblazer]

I wil call it ImpossibleWithoutGod

Can you prove that?
Can you prove that God exists?

 

[Trailblazer]

That god has been ruled out empirically. That god allegedly created the universe in six days, but that didn't happen. That god allegedly created life in kinds including the first two human beings, but that never happened. That god allegedly flooded the entire earth. That never happened.

The key word here is allegedly.
God did not write the Bible so there is no reason to believe that any of these stories are literally true.

 

[McBell]

That god has been ruled out empirically.

Source please

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Can you prove that?
Can you prove that God exists?

I already did.

 

[Trailblazer]

I already did.

Nobody can prove that God exists. All we have is evidence, but evidence is not proof.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nobody can prove that God exists. All we have is evidence, but evidence is not proof.

Well that is news to God or not

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Source please

The god of Abraham is ruled out by the fact that the things it is said to have done didn't happen. If there's a god, it isn't the one described as having created the universe in six days, creating the kinds and the first two humans, confounding humanity with families of mutually incomprehensible languages, or flooding the earth. You know what happened. If there's is a god, it did that, not all of these things that never happened.

Others have tried to mitigate that argument by arguing that one is not to believe the stories - to treat them as allegories rather than actual historical accounts and then the god can come alive. Well, yeah, if we can change the meaning of words, we can make the claims not incorrect, but then they words describe another god or no god.

This is how the Christians argue that Jesus is the prophesied Hebrew messiah and Jesus are the same person - they simply redefine the meaning of the words of prophecy. Mortal human? It doesn't really mean that. A demigod fulfills prophecy. Radically changed the world in his lifetime? That's Jesus all right - the greatest reformer of all time notwithstanding the apparent fact that without Paul and Constantine, this religion would likely not be remembered after the first century CE except perhaps in scholarly works.

Do you find a flaw in this argument?

I wil call it ImpossibleWithoutGod

Nothing that is known to be possible is known to require a god to make it possible. Sorry, but this god is still looking for a job in reality - something it is needed to explain. Right now, we still don't have good answers for where the earliest universe came from, why it began expanding 13+ billion years ago, what dark matter and energy are, and where the first life came from. But the gaps in knowledge are narrowing every year. It appears that no gods are needed to account for nature. They aren't causing the thunder or dragging heavenly bodies through the skies. We don't need them for electrons to pass through circuits, for night to turn to day, or to breathe life into newborns. So what DO we need it for?

Christianity, the largest religion in the United States, experienced a 20th-century high of 91% of the total population in 1976. This declined to 73.7% by 2016 and 64% in 2022.

Yes, which alone can account for the decline in Abrahamism in the West, since the other three Abrahamic religions (I'm including the Mormons and JWs with the Christians) altogether are just a few percent of Western Abrahamics - Jews, Muslims, and Baha'i

There is no such thing as the God of the Bible..... there is just God, the God of all the great religions.

These gods are all quite distinct. Christianity's god had a son and sent a messiah, but neither the Jewish deity or the Muslim deity did, nor did yours to my knowledge. How often do you tell me what Baha'is don't believe that these others do? Your god is different than theirs.

Gradual.

You answered that? He asked, "Was evolution gradual or was it by hopeful monsters?" I couldn't think of what that might have meant that would make it sensible. He's a creationist, so he likely believes that life "evolved" in six days at the hands of a god many consider monstrous, but I doubt he meant that - evolution versus his god.

Nevertheless, Dawkins said it well: "The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

God did not write the Bible so there is no reason to believe that any of these stories are literally true.

We're in accord there. Yet as you can see, many do believe these stories.