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

[Revoltingest]

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

Why?
Also, why presume that it was random, rather than a stochastic process?

A first living creature would have to have had at least 100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence.

Evidence for the claim?

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.

Your calculation ignores several things....
- The number of paths for chemical reactions to lead to life.
- The number of possible such reactions possible in the volume
of reactants on Earth over the billions of years it could occur.
- The assumption that life could only have arisen as you envisioned.
- The assumption of randomness without stochastic processes.

A simple elegant proof.
Assume no God. Show the contradictions. Therefore, God exists.

That's not a proof at all.

The proof that the Bible is the true word of God is also easy.

That's just a claim without proof.

The atheists have been deceived into believing....

And believers have been deceived into believing
that ignorant goatherds many many centuries
ago knew what happened from the beginning of
time.

 

[F1fan]

How did evolution happen? Was it gradual or hopeful monsters (jumps).

This is covered in 7th grade science class. Your contempt for science is showing.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

This is covered in 7th grade science class. Your contempt for science is showing.

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. Yet it shows discrete species with millions of chains of missing links all still missing. Furthermore, there should be partial new developing organs in all individuals of all species. They too are missing. The odds against gradual evolution just based on these 2 alone, is mind boggling.

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.

 

[sun rise]

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. Yet it shows discrete species with millions of chains of missing links all still missing. Furthermore, there should be partial new developing organs in all individuals of all species. They too are missing. The odds against gradual evolution just based on these 2 alone, is mind boggling.

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.

Repeating statements proving you are ignorant is a waste of your time and ours as well. You say you love science but refuse to learn evolutionary science therefore your claim to love science is false.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Repeating statements proving you are ignorant is a waste of your time and ours as well. You say you love science but refuse to learn evolutionary science therefore your claim to love science is false.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

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. Yet it shows discrete species with millions of chains of missing links all still missing. Furthermore, there should be partial new developing organs in all individuals of all species. They too are missing. The odds against gradual evolution just based on these 2 alone, is mind boggling.

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.

No, you have an incorrect understanding of fossilization. For land life fossilization is an extremely rare event. And yet we have more than enough fossils to confirm that evolution is a fact. But the idea that we should have a totally complete record is ignorant nonsense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Most species do not leave a fossil behind.

We do have endless transitional species. Where do you get this ignorant nonsense from? You can't love science when you keep denying it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I have studied evolution and there was ni answer at all.

So what was the first living creature? Was it DNA based?

Oldest Evidence of Life Found in 3.95-Billion-Year-Old Rocks

The oldest evidence of life on Earth ever discovered may lie within rocks that are 3.95 billion years old, a new study finds.

www.livescience.com

 

[sayak83]

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.

Abiogenesis is not taught as an established scientific fact anywhere but a promising theory with many fruitful leads whose final outlines are still unclear.
There are several threads going on that explains various aspects of abiogenesis which, if you read, will show why your initial claims of its improvability is based on inaccurate understanding.
Of course, that is, if you are really interested in the topic for the sake of understanding. If it's only for you to feel safe in your beliefs, then it's another matter.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Abiogenesis is not taught as an established scientific fact anywhere but a promising theory with many fruitful leads whose final outlines are still unclear.
There are several threads going on that explains various aspects of abiogenesis which, if you read, will show why your initial claims of its improvability is based on inaccurate understanding.
Of course, that is, if you are really interested in the topic for the sake of understanding. If it's only for you to feel safe in your beliefs, then it's another matter.

So there is no evidence that abiogenesis has occurred or could occur, yet it is assumed that it did happen, even though I just proved it is impossible.

 

[sayak83]

So there is no evidence that abiogenesis has occurred or could occur, yet it is assumed that it did happen, even though I just proved it is impossible.

You did not prove anything. Most of your claims are flat out wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You did not prove anything. Most of your claims are flat out wrong.

Which ones?

 

[Twilight Hue]

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. Yet it shows discrete species with millions of chains of missing links all still missing. Furthermore, there should be partial new developing organs in all individuals of all species. They too are missing. The odds against gradual evolution just based on these 2 alone, is mind boggling.

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.

You don't even know evolution is adaption to an environment.

It's why sharks evolutionary branch is essentially unchanged while others are more varied and diverse.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You don't even know evolution is adaption to an environment.

It's why sharks evolutionary branch is essentially unchanged while others are more varied and diverse.

Or God created it that way. The only problem is that nothing from evolution makes sense. They cannot explain how for example the eye evolved and multiple times.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Or God created it that way. The only problem is that nothing from evolution makes sense. They cannot explain how for example the eye evolved and multiple times.

The evolution of eyes: major steps. The Keeler lecture 2017: centenary of Keeler Ltd - Eye

Ocular evolution is an immense topic, and I do not expect to cover all the details of this process in this manuscript. I will present some concepts about some of the major steps in the evolutionary process to stimulate your thinking about this interesting and complex topic. In the prebiotic...

www.nature.com

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The evolution of eyes: major steps. The Keeler lecture 2017: centenary of Keeler Ltd - Eye

Ocular evolution is an immense topic, and I do not expect to cover all the details of this process in this manuscript. I will present some concepts about some of the major steps in the evolutionary process to stimulate your thinking about this interesting and complex topic. In the prebiotic...

www.nature.com

Nonsense.
It is irreducibly complex. There is no advantage until all parts are in place and there are many things that are needed for any vision to occur.

Please explain how anything that is irreducibly complex evolves.

Please explain how the eye came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these.

Please explain how flight came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these.

Please explain how blood clotting came to be. It is irreducibly complex.

Please explain how the first multi cell creature came to be.

Please explain how the bone tissue came to be.

Please explain how the citrus cycle came to be. It is irreducibly complex.

Please explain how ATP came to be and how the first creature that used it evolved that capability. The mechanism is irreducibly complex.

In fact, there are many things in living things that are irreducibly complex. Please explain how any of them evolved.

The science seems to have identified mitochondrial Eve and the recent origin of x chromosome Adam. This matches recent creation and destroys evolution. Why?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nonsense.
It is irreducibly complex. There is no advantage until all parts are in place and there are many things that are needed for any vision to occur.

Please explain how anything that is irreducibly complex evolves.

Please explain how the eye came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these.

Please explain how flight came to be. It is irreducibly complex. It happened independently more than once. Please explain all of these.

Please explain how blood clotting came to be. It is irreducibly complex.

Please explain how the first multi cell creature came to be.

Please explain how the bone tissue came to be.

Please explain how the citrus cycle came to be. It is irreducibly complex.

Please explain how ATP came to be and how the first creature that used it evolved that capability. The mechanism is irreducibly complex.

In fact, there are many things in living things that are irreducibly complex. Please explain how any of them evolved.

The science seems to have identified mitochondrial Eve and the recent origin of x chromosome Adam. This matches recent creation and destroys evolution. Why?

Maybe take a look at the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial and find out why irreducibly complex arguments are pure nonsense.

Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity This article covers irreducible complexity as used by those who argue for intelligent design. For information on irreducible complexity

www.bionity.com

 

[Brickjectivity]

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

Evolution only says that species can develop from other species. It does not say how species begin. They definitely can and do evolve, and it appears that humans are related to other apes just as cows are related to whales.

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

This is not an atheist vs believers issue. Believers benefit, because knowledge of evolution reaffirms that Genesis is not about the creation of our planet. It is about something else. Our round planet is not created in Genesis. Our Sun is not. Our stars are not. It is about the creation of something else: something very important but not a planet.

Therefore, God created all things.

A simple elegant proof.
Assume no God. Show the contradictions. Therefore, God exists.

I don't think that is faith. That is argument. It is an attempt to control people rather than have them choose God for moral reasons. If we want to control people and argue them down into doing things we are creating a Christianity in our own name, not in Christ's name. God is invisible, and we don't get to prove God exists or that people must obey God. It does not appear to be God's way. People are drawn to God because of God's mercy. People believe in God in spite of those who say they are foolish. I think its always been that way, and you can't change it. Trying to change it: God probably won't support such efforts. It would be nice if we had control of people's choices, but we do not. Evolution is unrelated. It is about this natural world.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a big conundrum is that if evolution is gradHal, then the fossil record should show a continuum of gradually changing species. Yet it shows discrete species with millions of chains of missing links all still missing.

Channeling Dr Banjo?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Channeling Dr Banjo?

And the answer to what was the first living thing is?