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

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

There are so many things wrong with this, it is difficult to know where to start.

1. The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life.
2. The origin of life is not considered an entirely random process.
3. You offer no basis for your calculation of the odds.
4. The odds of a specific sequence occurring randomly are different than some sequence coming together. Much as the odds of winning the lotter are 1:260,000,000 before the lottery and 1 after the number has been drawn and you won.
5. What is the evidentiary basis for concluding that a first living thing would be eaten up by the chemical makeup of its substrate? I didn't see it.
6. No one claims that life on Earth started 13.7 billion years ago. The Earth has only been determined to be a 4.5 billion years old, so life starting on Earth prior to the existence of Earth doesn't make much sense.
7. How do you know how God did it? I can't see that you do.
8. Your premises don't lead to your conclusions. It looks as if you have a conclusion and just threw something in as premises just to be able to state your conclusion.
9. Argument from ignorance.
10. I could just keep going on, but one was sufficient.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So there is no theory on how life arose anywhere. So why teach the fraud.

Science doesn't claim to have a theory. The current stance by science regarding the origin of life is: We don't know.

But what I have posted proves it could not happen anywhere.

What you posted demonstrates that you want a rational explanation based on evidence to fail. It doesn't demonstrate anything about what you claim to be demonstrating.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Of course. Are you?

Absolutely and thank you for using examples in your claims.

Proof through the law of non contradiction is not a logical fallacy.

You don't have proof and posts are so ripe with logical fallacies, it isn't just one that I'm talking about.

"Science" based on a already proven false assumption is.

Proof is not a standard of science. You haven't proven anything. What assumption are you claiming for science?

 

[Altfish]

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.

Oh dear?!? Very poor.

btw You under played the phrase "random chance" you only used it 3 times.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

There are so many things wrong with this, it is difficult to know where to start.

1. The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life.
2. The origin of life is not considered an entirely random process.
3. You offer no basis for your calculation of the odds.
4. The odds of a specific sequence occurring randomly are different than some sequence coming together. Much as the odds of winning the lotter are 1:260,000,000 before the lottery and 1 after the number has been drawn and you won.
5. What is the evidentiary basis for concluding that a first living thing would be eaten up by the chemical makeup of its substrate? I didn't see it.
6. No one claims that life on Earth started 13.7 billion years ago. The Earth has only been determined to be a 4.5 billion years old, so life starting on Earth prior to the existence of Earth doesn't make much sense.
7. How do you know how God did it? I can't see that you do.
8. Your premises don't lead to your conclusions. It looks as if you have a conclusion and just threw something in as premises just to be able to state your conclusion.
9. Argument from ignorance.
10. I could just keep going on, but one was sufficient.

1. There is no evolution, if the first living creature did not come into existence.
2. But getting very large specific amino acid sequences is a random process.
3. Not true.
4. odds against 10^160,000 to 1 is not the same. The analogy is false.
5. Remember the simple the first living creature, the less protection it has.
6. I just quoted that in case someone tries to claim life came from space.
7. proof by the law of non contradiction.
8. proof by the law of non contradiction is irrefutable.
9. That is what billions of years and evolution. Do you know the answer to all the origin questions? Ignorance is lack of knowledge.
10. You failed.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you simply lack an understanding of the sciences.

Do you know what one of the biggest cues that a person has no idea at all as to what is and what is not science? It is when they rant and rave about "proof".

Nor is logic a tool that you have been using properly. To use logic properly you must find a topic that it can deal with.

I do so enjoy the walk down memory lane when a creationist arrives full of vim and vigor to lay out the same flawed, "brand new" arguments that so many before them lead with 40 years ago

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I do so enjoy the walk down memory lane when a creationist arrives full of vim and vigor to lay out the same flawed, "brand new" arguments that so many before them lead with 40 years ago

Lot of science in your post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science doesn't claim to have a theory. The current stance by science regarding the origin of life is: We don't know.

What you posted demonstrates that you want a rational explanation based on evidence to fail. It doesn't demonstrate anything about what you claim to be demonstrating.

Yes, abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. That does not mean that we do not have plenty of evidence for it. Scientists simply have not answered all of the questions yet.

And we are unlikely to know exactly how life first arose. Not because it is impossible, but rather because it is very possible. Some of the required steps have more than one solution and we may never know if it the answer for a particular step was process A, or process B, or process C or some mixture of them. I use the analogy of a person's trip across a city. With countless roads and paths one cannot be sure of which exact path he took, but we can be fairly sure that he made the trip by some mundane fashion and that the answer is not "A Jeannie did it (Barbara Eden flashback)".

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yes, abiogenesis is still in the hypothetical stage. That does not mean that we do not have plenty of evidence for it. Scientists simply have not answered all of the questions yet.

And we are unlikely to know exactly how life first arose. Not because it is impossible, but rather because it is very possible. Some of the required steps have more than one solution and we may never know if it the answer for a particular step was process A, or process B, or process C or some mixture of them. I use the analogy of a person's trip across a city. With countless roads and paths one cannot be sure of which exact path he took, but we can be fairly sure that he made the trip by some mundane fashion and that the answer is not "A Jeannie did it (Barbara Eden flashback)".

Abiogenesis is not possible. Thanks for the candid post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lot of science in your post.

You are not ready for the science yet. You need to learn the basics first.

A person that has no understanding of the sciences will simply deny that which they do not understand. Until you demonstrate that you understand the basics of science you are in no position to demand answers. But fear not. People will gladly help you with the basics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Abiogenesis is not possible. Thanks for the candid post.

I did not say that or imply that. In fact I said the opposite.

But thank you for confirming my prior post. You lack the education to be able to demand answers.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You are not ready for the science yet. You need to learn the basics first.

A person that has no understanding of the sciences will simply deny that which they do not understand. Until you demonstrate that you understand the basics of science you are in no position to demand answers. But fear not. People will gladly help you with the basics.

I know the basics of science. In this area, you have been deceived. The no God assumption, leads to the no Satan assumption.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I did not say that or imply that. In fact I said the opposite.

But thank you for confirming my prior post. You lack the education to be able to demand answers.

What is your education and occupation, if I may ask?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know the basics of science. In this area, you have been deceived. The no God assumption, leads to the no Satan assumption.

No, you don't. And everybody knows that you do not. If you did you would not be soooooooo afraid to discuss it. If you understood the basics it would be obvious rather quickly. Instead every post that you make confirms that you have no understanding of the sciences at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1. There is no evolution, if the first living creature did not come into existence.

Of course, but that creature could have originated by any means. The theory doesn't require life to have arisen naturally. Divine would work. Evolution still exists as an observable, quantifiable phenomenon based on the evidence.

2. But getting very large specific amino acid sequences is a random process.

No. It isn't.

3. Not true.

Yes, true.

4. odds against 10^160,000 to 1 is not the same. The analogy is false.

No it isn't.

5. Remember the simple the first living creature, the less protection it has.

How do you know? If it could originate at all in its environment, there is no reason to assume that it would do so instantly vulnerable. To conclude that it must is baseless.

6. I just quoted that in case someone tries to claim life came from space.

Good for you. And you know it didn't because you don't want to consider the possibility and it makes you uncomfortable to contemplate.

7. proof by the law of non contradiction.

Where?

8. proof by the law of non contradiction is irrefutable.

Where is this proof? Show me.

9. That is what billions of years and evolution.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. With your advanced degrees and years of study in biology, chemistry and geology, surely you can post it so even a child could understand?

Do you know the answer to all the origin questions?

I don't. That I do not does not prove your claim.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge.

And you wear it so well. It's all the fashion in creationist circles I understand.

10. You failed.

I disagree and consider the failure to be coming from another direction.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you don't. And everybody knows that you do not. If you did you would not be soooooooo afraid to discuss it. If you understood the basics it would be obvious rather quickly. Instead every post that you make confirms that you have no understanding of the sciences at all.

Debate 101 garbage again. You lose.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is your education and occupation, if I may ask?

What's yours?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is your education and occupation, if I may ask?

I have a bachelor of science is geology, but I worked elsewhere. I did some work in geology, but that was when I was still a student. I do not claim to be a scientist, I merely understand the sciences much better than you do.

You have an elementary school level of scientific literacy. Let's work on trying to get that up to the high school level at least. What do you say?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lot of science in your post.

There isn't any science presented in the OP, so what did you expect?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Debate 101 garbage again. You lose.

No, those are all demonstrable facts. Debate 101 violations are what you do when you lie about others. I have offered to support my claims. You have run away.

Let's get back to the discussion of what is and what is not science.

To do science one has to use the scientific method. Here is my favorite (but it is not the only) flow chart of the scientific method: