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

[SavedByTheLord]

These "arguments" only show that you do not know how to make a logical argument. Remember how you tried using that "Debate 101" crap earlier? That is all that you have been doing your whole time here.

You are only demonstrating your own rather vast ignorance of all of the sciences and your unwillingness to learn.

Ironically none of those involved with this research agree with you. They would all say that the various articles and videos that you have been linking are evidence for evolution. So who to believe? The experts in the field or the totally uneducated denier of reality abusing their work?

Here is just the fundamentals and they destroy the false theories of evolution and billions of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is just the fundamentals and they destroy the false theories of evolution and billions of years.

How does it refute evolution? If anything it is evidence for evolution. Or rather ultimately abiogenesis.


A video that you did not watch does not help you. In fact it is actually against the rules of the forum for you to post a video that you cannot at least give a brief synopsis of. You are supposed to do that.

 

[F1fan]

God created DNA with His Almighty power.

All you did was make another claim. Where is the video does it show where God came from, and how it exists? Nothing.

You didn't prove your God exists, or how it made DNA, or where the stuff came from. Where are your answers? Don't have any?

DNA could have never have been produced through evolution.

But science explains that it has. There is a way nature can convert inorganic chemicals to organic chemicals. These chemicals can bond and create the building blocks of life, amino acids. Science has revealed there are nucleotides and amino acids all which form DNA in a natural process.

So why is a God needed? Where is this God?

Where is there evidence of your God existing outside of your imagination? No assumptions, just facts.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

All you did was make another claim. Where is the video does it show where God came from, and how it exists? Nothing.

You didn't prove your God exists, or how it made DNA, or where the stuff came from. Where are your answers? Don't have any?

But science explains that it has. There is a way nature can convert inorganic chemicals to organic chemicals. These chemicals can bond and create the building blocks of life, amino acids. Science has revealed there are nucleotides and amino acids all which form DNA in a natural process.

So why is a God needed? Where is this God?

Where is there evidence of your God existing outside of your imagination? No assumptions, just facts.

Science has never explained where DNA codes came from.

The odds against just the DNA code of a person is more than 10^6 billion to 1.

 

[Bthoth]

Science has never explained where DNA codes came from.

Just like the missing-link bones, continuous seeking and learning must continue.

The odds against just the DNA code of a person is more than 10^6 billion to 1.

The odds that dinosaur bones were put into the ground by god to employ people is even higher.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science has never explained where DNA codes came from.

The odds against just the DNA code of a person is more than 10^6 billion to 1.

So what? Even if that is true why would it matter? You appear to be making the mistake of assuming that people were a goal. They are just a result. This is the lottery fallacy again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just like the missing-link bones, continuous seeking and learning must continue.

The odds that dinosaur bones were put into the ground by god to employ people is even higher.

He loves the lottery fallacy. That is where one calculates the odds against a specific event assuming that was a goal. For example the odds that I will win the Mega Millions lottery is something like 300 million to one against me. That does not mean that it is impossible for anyone to win the lottery. The odds that someone will win it sooner or later are almost 1.

 

[Bthoth]

He loves the lottery fallacy. That is where one calculates the odds against a specific event assuming that was a goal. For example the odds that I will win the Mega Millions lottery is something like 300 million to one against me. That does not mean that it is impossible for anyone to win the lottery. The odds that someone will win it sooner or later are almost 1.

Agreed, eventually someone will win.

That is how I observe knowledge; eventually someone will be able to comprehend how it works.

 

[F1fan]

Science has never explained where DNA codes came from.

Sure it has. It is all explained as a natural process. Inorganic chemicals converted to organic chemicals, and then converted to compounds and molecules. These are the building blocks of life and DNA.

Science explains how this happens naturally It doesn’t have enough data to know the exact natural conditions. One thing for sure, there’s no evidence of any gods or supernatural causes. So those are irrelevant. You’ve yet to prove your beliefs are true.

The odds against just the DNA code of a person is more than 10^6 billion to 1.

So probable. And it’s the only explanation we have evidence for. Thus far no evidence for gods or a supernatural. Unless you have facts that a God exists and does the things you claimed we throw it out.

 

[F1fan]

He loves the lottery fallacy. That is where one calculates the odds against a specific event assuming that was a goal. For example the odds that I will win the Mega Millions lottery is something like 300 million to one against me. That does not mean that it is impossible for anyone to win the lottery. The odds that someone will win it sooner or later are almost 1.

If a lottery ticket is issued to every human on earth the odds you will win is over 8 billion to 1. You winning is improbable. Someone winning is 100%.

 

[Bthoth]

Sure it has. It is all explained as a natural process. Inorganic chemicals converted to organic chemicals, and then converted to compounds and molecules. These are the building blocks of life and DNA.

Science explains how this happens naturally It doesn’t have enough data to know the exact natural conditions. One thing for sure, there’s no evidence of any gods or supernatural causes. So those are irrelevant. You’ve yet to prove your beliefs are true.

So probable. And it’s the only explanation we have evidence for. Thus far no evidence for gods or a supernatural. Unless you have facts that a God exists and does the things you claimed we throw it out.

I used to hold and idea that people use "god as the cause' as simple english for doing the carl sagan
""We just dont know!"

 

[F1fan]

I used to hold and idea that people use "god as the cause' as simple english for doing the carl sagan
""We just dont know!"

Correct. We see creationists try to pick holes in science, especially exploiting questions that haven’t been answered sufficiently yet. They seem to think that if science hasn’t been able to explain, some thing adequately, yes, that their honesty means they can assert that their creations ideas must be true by default. It doesn’t work that way. You have to prove your propositions. Science does a great job at designing hypothesis, and then experimenting testing the hypothesis and comes up with valid, reliable answers. Creationism doesn’t do that. They assert their beliefs, are true, and that’s it. The honest approach, the approach that has integrity, is science, because it honestly admits if it doesn’t know an answer, unlike creationists, who are frauds.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct. We see creationists try to pick holes in science, especially exploiting questions that haven’t been answered sufficiently yet. They seem to think that if science hasn’t been able to explain, some thing adequately, yes, that their honesty means they can assert that their creations ideas must be true by default. It doesn’t work that way. You have to prove your propositions. Science does a great job at designing hypothesis, and then experimenting testing the hypothesis and comes up with valid, reliable answers. Creationism doesn’t do that. They assert their beliefs, are true, and that’s it. The honest approach, the approach that has integrity, is science, because it honestly admits if it doesn’t know an answer, unlike creationists, who are frauds.

It's easier to be certain about a wrong
(or not even wrong) answer than to say
"I don't know".

 

[Bthoth]

Correct. We see creationists try to pick holes in science, especially exploiting questions that haven’t been answered sufficiently yet. They seem to think that if science hasn’t been able to explain, some thing adequately, yes, that their honesty means they can assert that their creations ideas must be true by default. It doesn’t work that way. You have to prove your propositions.

About naturally of course.

Science does a great job at designing hypothesis, and then experimenting testing the hypothesis and comes up with valid, reliable answers.

Creating hypothesis is rational to people that question what is understood. What I enjoy is that anyone can write a hypothesis but then must prepare for peer review.

Creationism doesn’t do that. They assert their beliefs, are true, and that’s it. The honest approach, the approach that has integrity, is science, because it honestly admits if it doesn’t know an answer, unlike creationists, who are frauds.

And why I used the 'Carl Sagan" as an example of how scientists are capable of such humility of actually saying 'we just dont know'.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Sure it has. It is all explained as a natural process. Inorganic chemicals converted to organic chemicals, and then converted to compounds and molecules. These are the building blocks of life and DNA.

Science explains how this happens naturally It doesn’t have enough data to know the exact natural conditions. One thing for sure, there’s no evidence of any gods or supernatural causes. So those are irrelevant. You’ve yet to prove your beliefs are true.

So probable. And it’s the only explanation we have evidence for. Thus far no evidence for gods or a supernatural. Unless you have facts that a God exists and does the things you claimed we throw it out.

Give the molecular formulas and the codes of the sequence

 

[F1fan]

Give the molecular formulas and the codes of the sequence

Science explains it. Christianity doesn't. Heck your religion can't even explain how IT makes any sense.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Science explains it. Christianity doesn't. Heck your religion can't even explain how IT makes any sense.

There is no explanation from evolutionary science.
Just the idea it must have happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no explanation from evolutionary science.
Just the idea it must have happened.

You don't understand science so you wouldn't know. Even worse, you refuse to learn when people offer to help you.

 

[ratiocinator]

Give the molecular formulas and the codes of the sequence

It is incredible double standards to demand every single detail from science, when your only answer to anything amounts to "it's magic, innit?" Nevertheless, this RNA strand will self-replicate in the right conditions:

NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN

(N is 'don't care').

From: Rutherford, Adam. Creation: The Origin of Life / The Future of Life​

It's even worse double standards to just dismiss all the evidence for evolution with the absurd claim that it is circular reasoning when you obviously don't understand the term and cannot give even a single, solitary example of circular reasoning in the evidence,

 

[F1fan]

There is no explanation from evolutionary science.

False. There is an incredibly complicated and accurate explanations that experts report, and the well educated accept. We lay people don't understand most of the results because of the depth of what is involved. A few decades ago I was in college for my psychology degree and I was in a waiting room on the campus. I looked at the table covered in magazines and saw a copy of Cell Magazine, a monthly biology magazine dedicated to what is being discovered about cells. I was curious and figured I would know a lot about what they reported. I was wrong, I didn't know the vast majority of what the articles and disagrams explained. The description of parts of cells and processes were way beyond my knowledge base, even though I have basic biology knowledge. So when we see creations try to oke holes in science it is laughable. Science knows vastly more than we are aware of, and the superficial attacks made by creationist and science deniers is a joke. Creationists aren't exverts.

It's only fringe Christain extremists that reject science due to indoctrination in a false religious framework called creationism. Science is compicated and hard to learn. Religion is simplistic and easy. You demand answers from science that 1. often answers, but you reject for irrational, non-factual reasons, and 2. what science can't answer it explains what it can and what is likely the answer, which you also reject. Abiogenesis is natural and plausible as a mechanism for the creation of organic chemicals. What do creationsists offer? Magic, and a magic they can't show exists. We also understand that you and your religious dogma has FEWER answers than what you demand. Your beliefs are not fact based. You can't demonstrate that your idea of God is real outside of your imagination.

This is a fatal flaw in your beliefs. That you are convinced is irrelevant. In debate you need to present evidence that compels others to agree, and agree by following the rules of discourse. Your indocrination is a liability because you don't seek truth, you seek justification for your dogma. So even though the well educated present valid answers, you are closed minded.

Just the idea it must have happened.

Creationism is simplistic and doesn't account for the vast majority of evidence and data the way science does. Science can't male unwarranted assumptions like assuming a God exists, or assuming the Bible is literally true. That is why creationism fails, and science succeeds.