Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Subduction Zone]

Defend your theory . You will not because you can not.
what was the first living creature and what features did it have?

Defend it from what? Arguments that are only logical fallacies only need to be laughed at.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Defend it from what? Arguments that are only logical fallacies only need to be laughed at.

So you cannot defend your religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you cannot defend your religion.

I don't have a religion. That is your flaw.

Can I defend evolution? Of course, do you need to "defend yourself" against a toddler trying to kick you in the shin? A simple hand to the forehead is all that it takes.

 

[ratiocinator]

Of course it is relevant. I would not have posted it if it was not,

Behold the glory of God's creation.

Figure 6-89, Protein aggregates that cause human disease - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

Yet another baseless assertion.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Yet another baseless assertion.

Are you referring to the scientific NCBI article?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you referring to the scientific NCBI article?

He's referring to your claim. Not to your quote mine

 

[SavedByTheLord]

He's referring to your claim. Not to your quote mine

Thanks for clarifying. So you have no objections to the NCBI article. Then how do you explain what the article talks about.
Start at the beginning.

Nothing begat the thing that caused the Big Bing.
The thing that caused the Big Bang begat the Big Bang.
The Big Bang begat the universe, all matter, all forces, all energy, time, the finely tuned and orderly laws of nature, elements, chemicals, etc.
The chemicals begat the first living creature.
Now work up to all living things and explain how we get to all the things that these articles and videos are describing with as many begettings as you need for your proof..
Please be very very specific with all the details,

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thanks for clarifying. So you have no objections to the NCBI article. Then how do you explain what the article talks about.
Start at the beginning.

What part did you not understand? What needs "explaining"?

Nothing begat the thing that caused the Big Bing.

Probably.

The thing that caused the Big Bang begat the Big Bang.

Possibly.

The Big Bang begat the universe, all matter, all forces, all energy, time, the finely tuned and orderly laws of nature, elements, chemicals, etc.

Hold on a second. You do not get to assume that the universe is "finely tuned". That is just an unjustified claim of creationists. And a rather poor one.

The chemicals begat the first living creature.

Poorly worded but that does appear to be the case.

Now work up to all living things and explain how we get to all the things that these articles and videos are describing with as many begettings as you need for your proof..

We do not need to "prove" anything. You still do not understand the concept of the scientific method. There is no "proof" in science. In a scientific debate you lose when you demand a solid "proof". And also since there are multiple possible pathways to life we do not even need to "prove"

I could give you an analogy of our two different positions, but you do not seem to understand analogies too well.

Please be very very specific with all the details,

Again, there is no need when there are multiple possible pathways. We may not ever know the exact path taken. That does not mean that it did not happen.

How about we use an analogy? They can be fun even if you do not understand them.

 

[Sargonski]

The following is not possible with evolution even with billions of years.

Dude .... quite posting links that do not support your claim .... and don't post links without citing something from that link that does support claim .. so should someone be silly enough to go on one of your wild goose chases... they know what they are looking for.

You have absolutely no idea what is possible -- and what is not -- because you have absolutely no idea what the assumptions in your calculation are. What are the assumptions in the calculation -- 5th time this has been asked -- do you not understand English ?

I asked you specifically if Godly intervention is considered part of nature in your calculation and you failed to respond to the question -- instead respond with more "fake facts" .. unable to even state what you think is not possible with evolution ?! "The following" ?? .. Good Grief

Your foundation is based on fake facts , naked claims, deflection and deception Brother SBTL .. just like those who are "Saved by Lord Satan and Lord Marty"

Now listen .. and listen good ! If you don't know what the assumptions are in the calculation .. then you have absolutely no idea what is possible and what is not with evolution.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Dude .... quite posting links that do not support your claim .... and don't post links without citing something from that link that does support claim .. so should someone be silly enough to go on one of your wild goose chases... they know what they are looking for.

You have absolutely no idea what is possible -- and what is not -- because you have absolutely no idea what the assumptions in your calculation are. What are the assumptions in the calculation -- 5th time this has been asked -- do you not understand English ?

I asked you specifically if Godly intervention is considered part of nature in your calculation and you failed to respond to the question -- instead respond with more "fake facts" .. unable to even state what you think is not possible with evolution ?! "The following" ?? .. Good Grief

Your foundation is based on fake facts , naked claims, deflection and deception Brother SBTL .. just like those who are "Saved by Lord Satan and Lord Marty"

Now listen .. and listen good ! If you don't know what the assumptions are in the calculation .. then you have absolutely no idea what is possible and what is not with evolution.

They prove that evolution and billions of years are false.

Dude .... quite posting links that do not support your claim .... and don't post links without citing something from that link that does support claim .. so should someone be silly enough to go on one of your wild goose chases... they know what they are looking for.

You have absolutely no idea what is possible -- and what is not -- because you have absolutely no idea what the assumptions in your calculation are. What are the assumptions in the calculation -- 5th time this has been asked -- do you not understand English ?

I asked you specifically if Godly intervention is considered part of nature in your calculation and you failed to respond to the question -- instead respond with more "fake facts" .. unable to even state what you think is not possible with evolution ?! "The following" ?? .. Good Grief

Your foundation is based on fake facts , naked claims, deflection and deception Brother SBTL .. just like those who are "Saved by Lord Satan and Lord Marty"

Now listen .. and listen good ! If you don't know what the assumptions are in the calculation .. then you have absolutely no idea what is possible and what is not with evolution.

Just basic probably and statistics, biology, chemistry and logic.

The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

It 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 1,000,000 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.

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.

 

[Sargonski]

They prove that evolution and billions of years are false.


Just basic probably and statistics, biology, chemistry and logic.

The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

It 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 1,000,000 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.

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.

I did not say the first creature came into being by random chance ? but nor do you have any idea what the odds against a sequence of 100,000 amino acid's coming together by natural processes is .. because you have no idea what assumptions you are making in the odds calculation.

So .. you understand that two nails have been driven into your crucified position ..

1) who told you nature operates by "random chance" -- thats a bit of a problematic assumption don't you think ? -- never mind the mindless "prove your claim without making assumptions" silliness -- I won't hold you to account on that one .. feel free to make as many assumptions you like .. but, state what they are.

2) You have no idea what is possible and what is not in nature .. because you are unaware of the assumptions in your calculation. You have no skill in "basic statistics, biology, chemistry and logic" so you can stop trying to project those failings onto me. I am a Chemist and applied microbiological specialist remember ... which is part of the reason your silly fake facts and science arguments are being crucified.

3) for the third time now .. Is Godly intervention considered part of nature /natural processes in your calculation ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They prove that evolution and billions of years are false.

How? Just claiming that they do is not good enough. You refute yourself when you cannot answer reasonable questions.

Just basic probably and statistics, biology, chemistry and logic.

But you keep forgetting that you do not understand basic 'probably' ( you can't even use the proper terminology) chemistry or logic (especially logic. you post one logical fallacy after another). Since you do not understand these concepts how can they help you?

The first creature could not have come into being by random chance. It is impossible.

It 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 1,000,000 base pairs. I also have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.

No, this has been refuted.

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.

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.

Well of course if one constructs a strawman, another logical fallacy by the way, one can make it look as if an event is nigh near impossible. Too bad that you got your basic "facts" wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks for clarifying. So you have no objections to the NCBI article.

Neither does that book have any objections to evolution, eventhough you like to claim it does.

Then how do you explain what the article talks about.
Start at the beginning.

You could also just read the entire book instead of asking me to explain your own quotes for you.

Nothing begat the thing that caused the Big Bing.
The thing that caused the Big Bang begat the Big Bang.
The Big Bang begat the universe, all matter, all forces, all energy, time, the finely tuned and orderly laws of nature, elements, chemicals, etc.
The chemicals begat the first living creature.
Now work up to all living things and explain how we get to all the things that these articles and videos are describing with as many begettings as you need for your proof..
Please be very very specific with all the details,

No, the book is about cell biology. It's not about big bang cosmology, astronomy, chemistry, etc.

Please at least try to keep track off your own quote mining.

 

[Sargonski]

Nothing begat the thing that caused the Big Bing.

When you start off with a false premise ... underlying one's foundation - the rest of the building don't stand up too good.

Who is this Nothing person that begat the thing that caused the Big Bangy ? har har har

How you know what begat what in the universe ... nobody told you about the Primordial one .. the "Uncreated" it don't exist in that Jewish book .. or should we say .. least not by the Name YHWH.. the Uncreated one might sneak in an appearance from time to time but how would you recognize her ? Ye know naught of the womb from whence creation is sprung.

 

[McBell]

Defend your theory . You will not because you can not.
what was the first living creature and what features did it have?

Imagine you were a vampire no where near the Middle East and have never even heard of Jesus, but the day after He dies, you gotta figure out why all of a sudden lower case t's started hurting.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

When you start off with a false premise ... underlying one's foundation - the rest of the building don't stand up too good.

Who is this Nothing person that begat the thing that caused the Big Bangy ? har har har

How you know what begat what in the universe ... nobody told you about the Primordial one .. the "Uncreated" it don't exist in that Jewish book .. or should we say .. least not by the Name YHWH.. the Uncreated one might sneak in an appearance from time to time but how would you recognize her ? Ye know naught of the womb from whence creation is sprung.

So no real answers

 

[Sargonski]

So no real answers

Certainly none coming from you.. despite your best attempts. The smart player knows there is no answer of which one can be certain ... some things we simply don't know for certain ..and what happened prior to the Big Bang is one of them .. if the Supreme one is YHWH is another .. and what the role of the Supreme one in creation is another.

The decepticon tries to pretend he knows the answer the unknowable .. deceiving himself and trying to project this deception onto others around him. Did you have trouble understanding the question Friend ?

You were told "When you start off with a false premise ... underlying one's foundation - the rest of the building don't stand up too good.

You were asked "Who is this Nothing person that begat the thing that caused the Big Bang!"

 

[Subduction Zone]

So no real answers

Those were real answers. Your argument had false premises in it. I was explaining that to you a long long time ago when you ran away.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Certainly none coming from you.. despite your best attempts. The smart player knows there is no answer of which one can be certain ... some things we simply don't know for certain ..and what happened prior to the Big Bang is one of them .. if the Supreme one is YHWH is another .. and what the role of the Supreme one in creation is another.

The decepticon tries to pretend he knows the answer the unknowable .. deceiving himself and trying to project this deception onto others around him. Did you have trouble understanding the question Friend ?

You were told "When you start off with a false premise ... underlying one's foundation - the rest of the building don't stand up too good.

You were asked "Who is this Nothing person that begat the thing that caused the Big Bang!"

Your premise and reasoning are false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your premise and reasoning are false.

What is his premise? Why is his reasoning false?