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

[SavedByTheLord]

Creationism and its specious argumentation. You've brought familiar and already rebutted creationist memes here. This practice has a name: Lying for Jesus, also called pious fraud. From Pious fraud

"Pious fraud is a term applied to describe fraudulent practices used to advance a religious cause or belief. This type of fraud may, by religious apologists, be explained as a case of the ends justify the means, in that if people are saved from eternal damnation, then it's perfectly fine to tell a few fibs and perform some magic tricks."

Not because you or your Bible say so. It's extremely likely that life forms wherever conditions permit it to, just like every other process in physics and chemistry. Whenever the conditions are right for ice to melt or water to freeze, it does so EVERY SINGLE TIME.

And random chance is a creationist trope. We say unintended process (proceeds without consciousness or purpose, that is, is blind). Planets form from aggregates of gas, dust, and rocks into spherical bodies. The process is unintended, but not random. The spherical outcome is inevitable if there is sufficient mass.

YOU don't have a theory. Has an excellent scientific hypothesis and a considerable amount of supporting data. It's the creationist who has nothing but an unfalsifiable claim. Nor does he require any support for his beliefs. He only requires that of others who have contradictory beliefs, and they have it. The creationist has nothing but his faith.

Nor would we expect to observe it. And here is your double standard again. YOUR hypothesis has never been observed, but that's not an issue with you, only the ideas you have rejected by faith need support according to you. That's a fallacy called special pleading, or unjustified double standard, also a staple in the creation apologists toolkit.

That is incorrect. Abiogenesis and biological evolution are consistent with the known laws of science. Both are inevitable where possible.

There is no burden of proof with a faith-based thinker. There is no burden of proof in the presence of a faith-based confirmation bias.

You'd need somebody who is skilled in critical thinking, has an adequate fund of factual knowledge, and has the receptive temperament of a student. Absent any of those, nobody can be convinced of anything, especially if he has an interest in NOT learning.

Consider a person who doesn't know any algebra or geometry and resists learning it. You have no burden of proof regarding the Pythagorean theorem with such a person, and no interest in his objections about the validity of the proof or his opinions on the relationship between the sides of a right triangle.

What are the odds of a god existing uncreated and undesigned? You don't know or care, do you? Odds, like evidence and hypotheses are only relevant to you when using them to argue science. This is the fraud of creationist apologetics. You know or should know how dishonest that is.

When you prove something to somebody who previously disagreed with you, you change a mind. Nobody has been convinced by your numbers, thus you've proven nothing. That puts you in the same position as a comedian who claims that his act was funny despite nobody laughing.

Theory? There is an excellent hypothesis with excellent supporting evidence based in thermodynamics. From A New Physics Theory of Life | Quanta Magazine :

"From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life. “You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said."

Because that would be incorrect. It was a collection of nucleic acids, proteins, water, smaller organic molecules, and ions encased in a lipid spherule.

That is also incorrect. From Visualized: The 4 Billion Year Path of Human Evolution

View attachment 82534

Nonsense.
It has to do with the very large sequences of amino acid. BTW, the earth is only about 6000 years old.

 

[Wandering Monk]

BTW, the earth is only about 6000 years old.

Indeed? Show us the evidence.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, there is plenty of evidence.

As a science denier you do not even understand the concept of evidence. Would you like to learn? It will not take long.

People often misunderstand that "evidence" & "proof"
are very different things. Evidence can be useful to
to prove something, but it doesn't necessarily succeed.
Consider court trials....
In cases where one side is right, & the other is wrong,
both sides produce evidence. Yet only one prevails.
Evidence can exist for things that are unprovable &
even wrong....
Feeling (by some) the divine spirit is evidence for God.
Flat earthers have the flat horizon as evidence.

One must consider all evidence & salient cogent
arguments to discern which is the better explanation.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Indeed? Show us the evidence.

I will do it in another thread soon

 

[Revoltingest]

In debate 101, when you have a hopelessly losing position as you do....

In debate 102, one learns that dismissing
other views as "hopelessly losing" convinces
no one. It bespeaks hubris.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Knowledge.
what do you think it is?

You need to answer the questions you have been dodging. Then you can ask questions. You can't ask questions if you refuse to answer any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then the poster should not use debate 101 techniques.

Oh my! How ironic. I never used such techniques. This is just another false accusation, and a breaking of the Ninth Commandment again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will do it in another thread soon

I am very sure that you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

In debate 102, one learns that dismissing
other views as "hopelessly losing" convinces
no one. It bespeaks hubris.

Just like you do

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense.
It has to do with the very large sequences of amino acid. BTW, the earth is only about 6000 years old.

Why do you keep claiming that God is a blatant liar? One way that early Christian scientists knew that at least some of the stories in Genesis were not literally true is because they did not believe that God is a liar.

You can't have it both ways. If Genesis is literally true God has to be a liar. Remember how I said that you probably do not understand the concept of evidence? You keep demonstrating a lack of such an understanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just like you do

I've not described your arguments that way.
I recommend not taking all this personally,
even though some here will make it so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just like you do

Okay, let's discuss the basics of science. When you dodge reasonable questions multiple times it tells others that you know you lack this knowledge.

Science is knowledge that is acquired by following the scientific method. There is no one single scientific method, but they do all roughly follow this flow chart:

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Okay, let's discuss the basics of science. When you dodge reasonable questions multiple times it tells others that you know you lack this knowledge.

Science is knowledge that is acquired by following the scientific method. There is no one single scientific method, but they do all roughly follow this flow chart:

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/Files/5084/7/2013-updated_scientific-method-steps_v6_noheader.png

Science is knowledge

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is knowledge

Close. It is a specific class of knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For example, we may have historical knowledge. That is still knowledge, it is not science.

 

[Heyo]

So what was the first living creature?
What was its code?
Was it RNA, DNA or protein based, or some combo?
Where did it come into existence?

You do not even have a theory.

Those are good questions. We don't have an answer (yet). Do you? And if you don't, do you know who is researching these questions? (I mean especially creationist "research" institutions and "scientists".)

 

[Viker]

Since this is in the theism section.

How would you know it was your specific god? Why couldn't it be Brahma or any other number of creation deities? Why does a creator have to even be known? What if the creator wished to remain anonymous? What if the creator isn't even a deity?

In my religion the universe was began with the destruction of something before it. What we see now is the remains of that thing that was before.

Why can't The Many To The One be the creator, it is the Destroyer of All? The debris left over has reformed into this creation, eventually it will be destroyed (converted) and the cycle repeats ad infinitum.

 

[We Never Know]

So what was the first living creature?
What was its code?
Was it RNA, DNA or protein based, or some combo?
Where did it come into existence?

You do not even have a theory.

I reckon one could ask...

Is there only one god?
Does it have a code?
Does it have RNA, DNA or protein based, or some combo or none of the above?
When did it come into existence?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Nonsense.
It has to do with the very large sequences of amino acid. BTW, the earth is only about 6000 years old.

I'm curious to know if you share the creationist viewpoint that either dinosaurs coexisted with humans and were present on Noah's Ark or that demons planted dinosaur fossils in order to trick people into doubting God's existence. And yes, I've met some creationists who held one or the other position.

 

[We Never Know]

I'm curious to know if you share the creationist viewpoint that either dinosaurs coexisted with humans and were present on Noah's Ark or that demons planted dinosaur fossils in order to trick people into doubting God's existence. And yes, I've met some creationists who held one or the other position.

"dinosaurs coexisted were present on Noah's Ark"

They missed it. That's why they went extinct.