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

[Subduction Zone]

Logic failure on your part.

Where? You cannot just claim that, you need to be able to show the error.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Where? You cannot just claim that, you need to be able to show the error.

Please refute both my logical irrefutable proofs. I will check your work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please refute both my logical irrefutable proofs. I will check your work.

Sorry, but you demonstrated that you do not have that ability. If you want to discuss your errors again I will be happy to do so. Perhaps sooner or later you will understand.

Think about this seriously. The Templeton Foundation would love it if you did have such an argument. You would be very handsomely rewarded for it. They have not been pounding on your door. You have not supplied your argument to them. That tells us that even you know that it is a failed argument.

Let me give you a hand. Here is a link to their site. If you can logically prove God they will reward you:

Templeton Prize

THE TEMPLETON PRIZE honors individuals whose exemplary achievements advance Sir John Templeton’s philanthropic vision: harnessing the power of the sciences to explore the deepest questions of the universe and humankind’s place and purpose within it.

www.templetonprize.org

 

[Alien826]

I guess you are referring to nonbelievers, who are perfectly fine with existing the way they are and have no belief in a future life beyond this earthly life. Indeed, why would they care to try and understand the above let alone determine if there is any truth in it? After all, time is precious, so why waste it on things one doesn't even believe exist - God and an afterlife? They are perfectly fine with existing the way they are and they believe that this earthly life is all there is, so they want to get the most out of it, since they believe their time is limited.

I feel the need to represent non-believers and correct this, at least as it applies to me.

I'm not "perfectly fine" to exist in world with no "future life". I simply don't believe that there is any such thing, and I accept that. I'd rather have some kind (not any kind!) of continued existence after death, but it ain't so. "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride". It's like falling off a (very high) cliff. On the way down I could believe that some magical thing would rescue me but I'm going to hit the ground hard anyway. I'm not "fine" with that but that's how it is.

 

[Trailblazer]

I feel the need to represent non-believers and correct this, at least as it applies to me.

Sorry, I should not have referred to nonbelievers collectively. I was thinking of certain nonbelievers who have told me they are 'perfectly fine' with existing the way they are, want to get the most out of this life, since they have no belief in a future life beyond this earthly life. Some of these nonbelievers have also said that they have no desire for a future life beyond this earthly life.

I'm not "perfectly fine" to exist in world with no "future life". I simply don't believe that there is any such thing, and I accept that. I'd rather have some kind (not any kind!) of continued existence after death, but it ain't so.......... I'm not "fine" with that but that's how it is.

With all due respect, you believe it ain't so, but you do not know it ain't so, just as I believe it is so but I do not know it as a fact, since I have never died.

I do not necessarily want to have a continued existence after this life, but since I believe it is so I try to accept the idea.
I have very mixed feelings about the afterlife.... The thought of existing forever is not very appealing to me, especially since I have no idea what that life will be like. The promises in the scriptures are much too vague for me.

A believer on another thread was telling me that If I really believed in life after death I would not resent the transitory sufferings of this world.
That's hogwash, especially since God has not revealed what the afterlife will be like. We are just supposed to believe it will be so much better than this life.

Does God Love Everyone Equally?

Having a God that suddenly sees everyone as equals contradicts the claim that God is unchanging as I see it. https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-it-possible-to-be-a-pagan.272611/ Many people are under the impression that Christianity teaches an absolute equality between all individuals...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.

A multitude of times, the claim has been made that the Bible has been proven. I don't believe that. Certainly not from the sources I've seen claiming it. I've seen no evidence for it. Repeating it dozens and hundreds of times like an incantation won't make it true.

If the Bible were demonstrated to be completely true from cover to cover, it would eliminate faith. Eliminate the very thing the Bible claims we need.

Why would faith be needed if everything in the Bible were verified to be true?

I think it would go further and eliminate the value of free will.

I was looking further into this and I can't find one passage in the Bible that recommends we stop looking, discovering and learning. My belief isn't in a God that wants us to ignore what He created, pretend it didn't happen or cower and recoil in fear that we may have discovered something that invalidates a particular interpretation. I am firmly against the idea of preaching and promoting ignorance and denial in the service of God.

 

[John53]

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

2 Corinthians 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.

A multitude of times, the claim has been made that the Bible has been proven. I don't believe that. Certainly not from the sources I've seen claiming it. I've seen no evidence for it. Repeating it dozens and hundreds of times like an incantation won't make it true.

If the Bible were demonstrated to be completely true from cover to cover, it would eliminate faith. Eliminate the very thing the Bible claims we need.

Why would faith be needed if everything in the Bible were verified to be true?

I think it would go further and eliminate the value of free will.

I was looking further into this and I can't find one passage in the Bible that recommends we stop looking, discovering and learning. My belief isn't in a God that wants us to ignore what He created, pretend it didn't happen or cower and recoil in fear that we may have discovered something that invalidates a particular interpretation. I am firmly against the idea of preaching and promoting ignorance and denial in the service of God.

I wonder how long it will be before we hear the cries of "you're not a real Christian" .

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As far as evolution goes...I've got a few questions about the fossil record and speciation.
1. The four known mechanisms of natural change : Natural selection, mutations, gene exchange, and epigenetics all require long periods -very long periods - of time to produce change.

I've seen it written the same way in many places, but the basic mechanisms of evolution are more correctly described as natural selection, genetic drift and gene flow. These would be the primary mechanisms of change in the allele frequencies in populations. Mutations, non-random mating, and migration would be mechanisms that supply the primary mechanisms with genetic variation on which to act. Epigenesis deals with changes to the packaging of genes and alters the regulation of genes.

The rate of change depends on the change being examined, the generation times, the number of genes involved in a trait, the strength of selection, mutation rate and so forth. In general, small changes can happen quickly and larger changes occur much, much more slowly. Compare the development of resistance in plants, insects and bacteria to speciation events. The former can take place very rapidly, while the latter can require 10's or 100's pf thousands of years.

All but genetic mutations generate relatively small step changes. But the vast majority of mutations are supposedly neutral. They cause neither harm nor benefit. Of those that are nonneutral, it has been calculated that harmful mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by a factor of 10,000 to 1, sometimes 10,000,000 to one.
This explains why ecologists observe far far more extinction events than speciation events in field studies.

It isn't that difficult to overcome natural selection and drive populations to extinction. No means existed for dinosaurs to overcome the radical and rapid changes that resulted when an asteroid collided with the Earth 65 million years ago. Humans have gotten quite good at it on our own unfortunately. Destroy the habitat and a population cannot change rapidly enough to recover.

The predominant model is slow change over long periods of time resulting in greater change and phylogenesis. But that can vary. Speciation has been observed in a number of organisms. Mosquitos and goatsbeard (Tragopogon) are a couple of examples where it has been observed. The proliferation of species in the cichlid superflock of Lake Victoria is an example of the evolution of 100's of species of cichlid in about 15,000 years.

All these processes require long...very long periods to produce significant changes. But those changes also require a stable or gradually changing environment to be beneficial. Catastrophic or rapid changes in the environment would negate these changes or cause extinction outright.

Yes. Gradual, incomplete, or discontinuous change favors evolution and very significant, rapid and widespread change favors extinction.

Now we all know that earths environment, while it can seem pretty stable to us in our short lifespans, is actually pretty vibrant. Especially in earths early years. If speciation takes billions of years of fairly stable conditions for mutations to be beneficial then this seems like a very long shot. And a shot that's been taken over and over again.

Evolution of higher taxa takes millions of years as reflected in the fossil record. It isn't always so simple a process as we would like it to be to make it more understandable. Neutral mutations may persist long enough to become fodder for later mutations that build on the neutral and result in something beneficial. Even if it is slight. Or a very tiny change may provide just a tiny advantage of being very slightly beneficial. Then over time another slightly advantageous variation occurs and on and on into time resulting in what we see in living things today.

2. All the natural processes predict a bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy. Over time we should see a proliferation of species first then with a lot more time we should see a proliferation of genera etc. until one or more phyla finally appear.

I think I see what you are saying. Starting with the first living things that can arise by any means, natural or divine, the evidence shows they evolved and branched. As I think we have both been saying, small changes leading into ever larger changes requiring more and more time.

However, the fossil record reveals the opposite. It reveals a top down hierarchy.

In general, the fossil record does show the branching we have been discussing.

" As paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and John Sepkoski have observed with respect to the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, “The major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families.”"
The most advanced phylum appears at the same time as the most primitive Cambrian phyla.
And they appear in the fossil record, coincidentally, (serendipitously?) at the same time the minimum level of oxygen they require is reached - 10% and not over millions of years but within a relatively short period of time at the beginning of the Cambrian not its middle or end. That's why they call it an explosion apparently. Both nonvertebrate chordates and vertebrates appear at that time.
Fifty animal phyla appeared at that time. Thirty exist on earth today. Of those 30, at least 28 were present during the Cambrian period and most of those at its beginning.

"paleontologists Kevin Peterson, Michael Dietrich, and Mark McPeek state in a review paper, “Elucidating the materialistic basis for the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself.”"
Ref: Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31, no. 7 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
And apparently
"Nearly all paleontologists who have written reviews on the Cambrian explosion in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have made this concession."
Ref: Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?” BioScience 58, no. 9 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912; Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist32, no. 1 (January–February, 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123.

How do we explain these things evolutionarily.

Very interesting. My first thought is that it is a rate issue. Here. Many new and unoccupied niches becoming quickly available driving very rapid change that leaves only the broader strokes behind in the fossil record so it appears that phyla evolved and then radiated out into numerous families, genera and species.

The Lake Victoria superflock of cichlids evolved to become as many as 700 new, endemic species as well as several genera evolving due to the sudden availability of niches that came into existence when the lake formed about 15,000 years ago.

I can only speculate and will have to read the sources you posted, but it could be an artifact of observation that is limiting the evidence to demonstrate an unusual pattern of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wonder how long it will be before we hear the cries of "you're not a real Christian" .

That is always the best thing to go with when valid arguments cannot be produced and nonsense claims fall apart. I'm not sure if I seen it maxed out, but even a parrot cannot repeat the same thing over and over forever. Once repetition has driven everyone with any interest away, what else is there?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please refute both my logical irrefutable proofs. I will check your work.

Seriously guy, give us a break.

 

[John53]

That is always the best thing to go with when valid arguments cannot be produced and nonsense claims fall apart. I'm not sure if I seen it maxed out, but even a parrot cannot repeat the same thing over and over forever. Once repetition has driven everyone with any interest away, what else is there?

I've been discussing this stuff since pre-internet fidonet days and it's always been the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been discussing this stuff since pre-internet fidonet days and it's always been the same.

Once I had a creationist agree to discuss the concept of evidence with me. And he was even honest, for a while. In fact I do not think that he lied. But when it got to the point where he could see that the definition of evidence was reasonable, since it takes human nature into account, and that it was applied uniformly in the sciences, and lastly that creationism could not follow the lines of evidence due to the cowardice of creation "scientists" he simply abandoned the conversation and went back to his old failed arguments. He acted as if the conversation never took place. He knew that he was wrong but still wanted to believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've been discussing this stuff since pre-internet fidonet days and it's always been the same.

I know what you mean. Different times, different people, same failed approach. Almost like a script being used over and over again.

 

[sayak83]

As far as evolution goes...I've got a few questions about the fossil record and speciation.
1. The four known mechanisms of natural change : Natural selection, mutations, gene exchange, and epigenetics all require long periods -very long periods - of time to produce change.
All but genetic mutations generate relatively small step changes. But the vast majority of mutations are supposedly neutral. They cause neither harm nor benefit. Of those that are nonneutral, it has been calculated that harmful mutations outnumber beneficial mutations by a factor of 10,000 to 1, sometimes 10,000,000 to one.
This explains why ecologists observe far far more extinction events than speciation events in field studies.
All these processes require long...very long periods to produce significant changes. But those changes also require a stable or gradually changing environment to be beneficial. Catastrophic or rapid changes in the environment would negate these changes or cause extinction outright.
Now we all know that earths environment, while it can seem pretty stable to us in our short lifespans, is actually pretty vibrant. Especially in earths early years. If speciation takes billions of years of fairly stable conditions for mutations to be beneficial then this seems like a very long shot. And a shot that's been taken over and over again.
2. All the natural processes predict a bottom-up development of taxonomic hierarchy. Over time we should see a proliferation of species first then with a lot more time we should see a proliferation of genera etc. until one or more phyla finally appear.

However, the fossil record reveals the opposite. It reveals a top down hierarchy.
" As paleontologists Douglas Erwin, James Valentine, and John Sepkoski have observed with respect to the Avalon and Cambrian explosions, “The major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, and orders before that of families.”"
The most advanced phylum appears at the same time as the most primitive Cambrian phyla.
And they appear in the fossil record, coincidentally, (serendipitously?) at the same time the minimum level of oxygen they require is reached - 10% and not over millions of years but within a relatively short period of time at the beginning of the Cambrian not its middle or end. That's why they call it an explosion apparently. Both nonvertebrate chordates and vertebrates appear at that time.
Fifty animal phyla appeared at that time. Thirty exist on earth today. Of those 30, at least 28 were present during the Cambrian period and most of those at its beginning.

"paleontologists Kevin Peterson, Michael Dietrich, and Mark McPeek state in a review paper, “Elucidating the materialistic basis for the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself.”"
Ref: Kevin J. Peterson, Michael R. Dietrich, and Mark A. McPeek, “MicroRNAs and Metazoan Macroevolution: Insights into Canalization, Complexity, and the Cambrian Explosion,” BioEssays 31, no. 7 (July 2009): 737, doi:10.1002/bies.200900033.
And apparently
"Nearly all paleontologists who have written reviews on the Cambrian explosion in the peer-reviewed scientific literature have made this concession."
Ref: Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Cambrian Explosion: How Do We Use the Evidence?” BioScience 58, no. 9 (October 2008): 855, doi:10.1641/B580912; Gregory A. Wray, “Rates of Evolution in Developmental Processes,” American Zoologist32, no. 1 (January–February, 1992): 131, doi:10.1093/icb/32.1.123.

How do we explain these things evolutionarily.

The issue is not as clear cut as you think
Integrated records of environmental change and evolution challenge the Cambrian Explosion - Nature Ecology & Evolution
The ‘Cambrian Explosion’ describes the rapid increase in animal diversity and abundance, as manifest in the fossil record, between ~540 and 520 million years ago (Ma). This event, however, is nested within a far more ancient record of macrofossils extending at least into the late Ediacaran at ~571 Ma. The evolutionary events documented during the Ediacaran–Cambrian interval coincide with geochemical evidence for the modernisation of Earth’s biogeochemical cycles. Holistic integration of fossil and geochemical records leads us to challenge the notion that the Ediacaran and Cambrian worlds were markedly distinct, and places biotic and environmental change within a longer-term narrative. We propose that the evolution of metazoans may have been facilitated by a series of dynamic and global changes in redox conditions and nutrient supply, which, potentially together with biotic feedbacks, enabled turnover events that sustained multiple phases of radiation. We argue that early metazoan diversification should be recast as a series of successive, transitional radiations that extended from the late Ediacaran and continued through the early Palaeozoic. We conclude that while the Cambrian Explosion represents a radiation of crown-group bilaterians, it was simply one phase amongst several metazoan radiations, some older and some younger.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Your OP is rather confusing.

because in your subject title, you talk of the first ”living thing”, which is rather vague. Then you talking of “living creature”, which also could mean any number of life form, but usually “creature” could be animal, but also of life that may or may not exist such as monster or even alien.

The word creature is not clearly defined term, as there are too many ambiguities.

But then you so incompetently use amino acids, making very little sense, because I don’t think you understand molecular biology and biochemistry, because a lot what you have to say is just gibberish, and it doesn’t help your argument when you throw God into bloody blender.

I really don’t know what you are arguing about. Is it about Abiogenesis? Or is it about Evolution?

Or is it really about your superstitious belief in your biblical God?

My advice is to stick with what you really know and believe in, like God, Jesus, church, Bible, etc, and stop talking about subjects that you don’t understand, like biology or about Earth sciences or astronomy/modern cosmology. Because you when do mix science and religion together, you sounds ignorant on both.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Your OP is rather confusing.

because in your subject title, you talk of the first ”living thing”, which is rather vague. Then you talking of “living creature”, which also could mean any number of life form, but usually “creature” could be animal, but also of life that may or may not exist such as monster or even alien.

The word creature is not clearly defined term, as there are too many ambiguities.

But then you so incompetently use amino acids, making very little sense, because I don’t think you understand molecular biology and biochemistry, because a lot what you have to say is just gibberish, and it doesn’t help your argument when you throw God into bloody blender.

I really don’t know what you are arguing about. Is it about Abiogenesis? Or is it about Evolution?

Or is it really about your superstitious belief in your biblical God?

My advice is to stick with what you really know and believe in, like God, Jesus, church, Bible, etc, and stop talking about subjects that you don’t understand, like biology or about Earth sciences or astronomy/modern cosmology. Because you when do mix science and religion together, you sounds ignorant on both.

There can be no evolution without a first living creature. that is why evolutionists run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There can be no evolution without a first living creature. that is why evolutionists run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.

You are partly right. If there was no first creature evolution could not have happened. Now you have never come close to proving that abiogenesis is wrong. Since we know that evolution happened by the endless evidence for it and the lack of evidence against it, if abiogenesis is wrong then there must have been another source for the first life.

Evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. How many thousands of times do you need to be told this?

 

[John53]

There can be no evolution without a first living creature. that is why evolutionists run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.

Are you here to have a discussion or just to proselytise and brag how smart you are? If it's the first option then start discussing like a rational person. If it's the 2nd option let us know so we can stop wasting our time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There can be no evolution without a first living creature. that is why evolutionists run and hide from the impossibility of abiogenesis.

You don't make any sense. Evolution is observed. It is not dependent on a particular origin of life. It is not this thing that you suggest everyone run to and hide behind.

You might as well be declaring there are no computers while using one to spread that message.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You don't make any sense. Evolution is observed. It is not dependent on a particular origin of life. It is not this thing that you suggest everyone run to and hide behind.

You might as well be declaring there are no computers while using one to spread that message.

So camels are evolving into cat right now?
There are no created kinds evolving into any other kind in all creature.
You are imagining things.
Evolution is a fairy tale, like the frog that turned into a price when the princess kissed it.