• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
F1fan said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
A long version of more circular reasoning.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
A long version of more circular reasoning.
Click to expand...
Just shows us that you can't rebut comments that damage your beliefs and postition. God is supposedly on your side but you can't muster the knowledge to show that anything I stated is false. I notice your comments are getting shorter and shorter, as if you are unable to respond to the well educated members that challenge your claims. Can you be honest and admit you don't have valid answers?
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Well keep telling yourself that evolution is true won’t make it true.
Click to expand...
That's what the facts and data do, demonstrates that evolution is true. Only dogmatists like you have to tell yourselves that beliefs are true. That's why science doesn't recognize any gods, there's no eviodence of any of them. Even you have ignored the requests for proof your God exists and you failed to present any. We need evidence that your God exists, and then that it can do anything that you believe it did in the Genesis myths. You haven't. You don't. You have nothing. All you have is your religious belief, and your mind in constant denial about reality.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
F1fan said:
That's what the facts and data do, demonstrates that evolution is true. Only dogmatists like you have to tell yourselves that beliefs are true. That's why science doesn't recognize any gods, there's no eviodence of any of them. Even you have ignored the requests for proof your God exists and you failed to present any. We need evidence that your God exists, and then that it can do anything that you believe it did in the Genesis myths. You haven't. You don't. You have nothing. All you have is your religious belief, and your mind in constant denial about reality.
Click to expand...
Name one.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Wow! A supposed honors student would not have that incredibly poor reading comprehension.

Read that post again. Tell me what parts that you did not understand.
Click to expand...
Biological enzymes are needed for all living things to survive and reproduce. And they only come from living things.
Evolution and billions of years are falsified forever.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
Biological enzymes are needed for all living things to survive and reproduce. And they only come from living things.
Evolution and billions of years are falsified forever.
Click to expand...
They are needed for all modern living things. You would need to prove that they were needed for the first life. And as I told and can show you if needed, RNA can do the same jobs that enzymes do. It is just not as efficient.

But I do thank you for continuing to state that the theory of evolution is correct.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
They are needed for all modern living things. You would need to prove that they were needed for the first life. And as I told and can show you if needed, RNA can do the same jobs that enzymes do. It is just not as efficient.

But I do thank you for continuing to state that the theory of evolution is correct.
Click to expand...
So you do not understand enzymes nor why a first living creature would need them to even come into existence, or survive or to reproduce.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
You have that backwards. Do you need sources? RNA can act as an enzyme. That means that enzymes were not needed for the first life.
Click to expand...
RNA and ribosomes and ribozymes are not sufficient to make living things come into existence, or survive or to reproduce.
They play a small role. The workhorse is enzymes.

But it does not matter because RNA, ribosomes, ribozymes and enzymes are required for iving things come into existence, or survive or to reproduce. And they do only come from living things. So the case against evolution and billions of years is much worse. Thanks for helping to refute evolution and billions of years.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
RNA and ribosomes and ribozymes are not sufficient to make living things come into existence, or survive or to reproduce.
They play a small role. The workhorse is enzymes.
Click to expand...

No, that is the workhorse of modern life. It is why abiogenesis does not occur today. Anything that arose naturally today would be out competed by more efficient cells. You are constantly making the error of using modern life as the standard.
SavedByTheLord said:
But it does not matter because RNA, ribosomes, ribozymes and enzymes are required for iving things come into existence, or survive or to reproduce. And they do only come from living things. So the case against evolution and billions of years is much worse. Thanks for helping to refute evolution and billions of years.
Click to expand...
Wrong again. RNA will self form in nature. A super fit athlete on a modern ten speed will beat the pants of of some overweight middleaged man using an old fashioned push bike with wooden wheels in the Tour de France. But given time the old dude will still cross the finish line.

You are not reasoning rationally again. "Can't win today". Does not mean that could never have competed ever.
 
SavedByTheLord

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, that is the workhorse of modern life. It is why abiogenesis does not occur today. Anything that arose naturally today would be out competed by more efficient cells. You are constantly making the error of using modern life as the standard.

Wrong again. RNA will self form in nature. A super fit athlete on a modern ten speed will beat the pants of of some overweight middleaged man using an old fashioned push bike with wooden wheels in the Tour de France. But given time the old dude will still cross the finish line.

You are not reasoning rationally again. "Can't win today". Does not mean that could never have competed ever.
Click to expand...
It is not observed today because it is just as impossible today as it has always was.
Real science does not claim something must have happeNed when it is known to be impossible today, never observed today which confirms it is impossicle, has no evidence of having occurred in the past which also shows it is impossible, and has been determined to be impossible with the facts of science.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
SavedByTheLord said:
It is not observed today because it is just as impossible today as it has always was.
Real science does not claim something must have happeNed when it is known to be impossible today, never observed today which confirms it is impossicle, has no evidence of having occurred in the past which also shows it is impossible, and has been determined to be impossible with the facts of science.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? It is "observed today". How do you think that they know that RNA can self form? And you should not make such a foolish claim as saying that " never observed today which confirms it is impossicle<sic>". By that "logic" your God does not exist. And yes, we do have evidence that it happened. I need to remind you that you do not understand the concept of evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top