The true living God

[alang1216]

Evolution created it. That's at least as good as "God created it" and at least there is a mechanism for evolution, there is none for creationism.

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

 

[ding]

Evolution created it. That's at least as good as "God created it" and at least there is a mechanism for evolution, there is none for creationism.

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

But you said evolution created the first RNA.

 

[james bond]

Evolution created it. That's at least as good as "God created it" and at least there is a mechanism for evolution, there is none for creationism.

Creationists hope to prove their gods by way of denigrating science.

There isn't any magic or supernaturalism required for the formation of DNA.

CB015: DNA or protein: Which came first?

The Origin of Life

There are additional links and many references at the links above.

Let's hope the thumpers can supply relevant links and references for their claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Ah, the evidence from Satan and what do we know about Satan? He is the master of lies and trickery.

"DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication..."

The above statement is not true. We have no evidence for abiogenesis.

What we do have is, "A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means."

Thus, the complexity problem still holds.

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

 

[ding]

Evolution created it. That's at least as good as "God created it" and at least there is a mechanism for evolution, there is none for creationism.

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

No. Chemical chains would have had to fold themselves in the exact right sequence. There was no self replicating until AFTER chance created the first chain that miraculously folded itself in the right sequence.

 

[Hollie]

Got a "mountain of evidence" for Satan?

Your replies to this thread haha.

You demand evidence of evolution. What evidence would you accept? I demand evidence of God. I say that only DNA can create DNA. Can you show that God can create DNA from it's raw materials? I say no one has ever seen God produce DNA, let alone a cell.

You best evidence from your "mountain of evidence" on the creation science side is that DNA can't be created by chance? A fact no one disputes. Very unimpressive display of evidence.

There is no mountain of evidence. There is no clump of jello, so there are no replies from the evolutionist peanut gallery.

What we do have is the evidence that I posted in #563. We have God creating humans and animals on the sixth day in Genesis and we've discovered a mountain of wonderful evidence for God's work from examining their cells.

You admitted it is fact that DNA cannot be created by chance. God does not play dice as claimed by Hawking. We live in a deterministic world and even a quantum world of superdeterminism, i.e. quantum entanglement. To put it another way, your fate has already been determined.

Sorry, but there is absolutely zero evidence for your gods or any of gods preceeding your gods.

Your comments about DNA are spectacularly wrong.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Your comments about "chance" with regard to the physical world are incorrect for various reasons, some of which relate to your religious extremism.

1. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.

2. Populations have a huge amount of genetic variation for every physical trait they possess.

3. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.

4. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.

5. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable.

6. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

7. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes.

8. Physical traits therefore have no theoretical limit to the direction or extent of evolution they can experience.

 

[james bond]

Evolution created it. That's at least as good as "God created it" and at least there is a mechanism for evolution, there is none for creationism.

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

Most of the stuff from 2007-2011 has been debunked for causes for evolution. This is the period when evolution first started being questioned severely. There was a strong movement for abiogenesis in response from the evos and it was similarly put down.

If you have something from later, then the creation people here would be happy to read.

 

[ding]

Got a "mountain of evidence" for Satan?

Your replies to this thread haha.

You demand evidence of evolution. What evidence would you accept? I demand evidence of God. I say that only DNA can create DNA. Can you show that God can create DNA from it's raw materials? I say no one has ever seen God produce DNA, let alone a cell.

You best evidence from your "mountain of evidence" on the creation science side is that DNA can't be created by chance? A fact no one disputes. Very unimpressive display of evidence.

There is no mountain of evidence. There is no clump of jello, so there are no replies from the evolutionist peanut gallery.

What we do have is the evidence that I posted in #563. We have God creating humans and animals on the sixth day in Genesis and we've discovered a mountain of wonderful evidence for God's work from examining their cells.

You admitted it is fact that DNA cannot be created by chance. God does not play dice as claimed by Hawking. We live in a deterministic world and even a quantum world of superdeterminism, i.e. quantum entanglement. To put it another way, your fate has already been determined.

Sorry, but there is absolutely zero evidence for your gods or any of gods preceeding your gods.

Your comments about DNA are spectacularly wrong.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Your comments about "chance" with regard to the physical world are incorrect for various reasons, some of which relate to your religious extremism.

1. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.

2. Populations have a huge amount of genetic variation for every physical trait they possess.

3. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.

4. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.

5. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable.

6. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

7. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes.

8. Physical traits therefore have no theoretical limit to the direction or extent of evolution they can experience.

There’s ton of evidence for God. It is literally all around and in you.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution created it. That's at least as good as "God created it" and at least there is a mechanism for evolution, there is none for creationism.

Creationists hope to prove their gods by way of denigrating science.

There isn't any magic or supernaturalism required for the formation of DNA.

CB015: DNA or protein: Which came first?

The Origin of Life

There are additional links and many references at the links above.

Let's hope the thumpers can supply relevant links and references for their claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Ah, the evidence from Satan and what do we know about Satan? He is the master of lies and trickery.

"DNA could have evolved gradually from a simpler replicator; RNA is a likely candidate, since it can catalyze its own duplication..."

The above statement is not true. We have no evidence for abiogenesis.

What we do have is, "A major aspect of the abiogenesis question is “What is the minimum number of parts necessary for an autotrophic free living organism to live, and could these parts assemble by naturalistic means?” Research shows that at the lowest level this number is in the multimillions, producing an irreducible level of complexity that cannot be bridged by any known natural means."

Thus, the complexity problem still holds.

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible

You ID'iot creationist thumpers are also part time comedians, right?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #23: Jerry Bergman

 

[james bond]

Sorry, but there is absolutely zero evidence for your gods or any of gods preceeding your gods.

Your comments about DNA are spectacularly wrong.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Your comments about "chance" with regard to the physical world are incorrect for various reasons, some of which relate to your religious extremism.

1. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.

2. Populations have a huge amount of genetic variation for every physical trait they possess.

3. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.

4. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.

5. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable.

6. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

7. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes.

8. Physical traits therefore have no theoretical limit to the direction or extent of evolution they can experience.

We have a mountain of evidence for God as I stated. We also have determinism and superdeterminism in the quantum world.

What you describe is natural selection and no one is arguing against it haha. Creation has it, too, as God selected what animals to take aboard Noah's Ark. He knew they would fit.

 

[alang1216]

Evolution created it. That's at least as good as "God created it" and at least there is a mechanism for evolution, there is none for creationism.

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

But you said evolution created the first RNA.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is this a chicken and egg thing?

 

[james bond]

You ID'iot creationist thumpers are also part time comedians, right?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #23: Jerry Bergman

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel and trolling now haha. That encyclopedia's writer, Fredrik Haraldsen Ryan, is a known creationist troll and wacktard in his own right.

 

[Hollie]

Sorry, but there is absolutely zero evidence for your gods or any of gods preceeding your gods.

Your comments about DNA are spectacularly wrong.

Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness.

Your comments about "chance" with regard to the physical world are incorrect for various reasons, some of which relate to your religious extremism.

1. Individuals do not evolve. Populations do.

2. Populations have a huge amount of genetic variation for every physical trait they possess.

3. Natural selection decides what genetic variation helps fitness, and what genetic variation hinders fitness. The entire population experiences a change in gene frequency as the fit genes become more common over time, and the unfit genes become rarer.

4. This results in the corresponding physical trait evolving in the direction of greater fitness.

5. Since these traits already have genes coding for them, they are not acquired. They are therefore completely inheritable.

6. Genetic variation is constantly being added to by random point mutations on the DNA molecule. Some of this new variation makes the animals slightly less fit, some makes it slightly more fit, and most makes no difference whatsoever.

7. As natural selection continues to act on the genes (both old and new) populations can eventually reach a point where all of the old genes for a certain trait have been replaced by the newly evolved genes.

8. Physical traits therefore have no theoretical limit to the direction or extent of evolution they can experience.

We have a mountain of evidence for God as I stated. We also have determinism and superdeterminism in the quantum world.

What you describe is natural selection and no one is arguing against it haha. Creation has it, too, as God selected what animals to take aboard Noah's Ark. He knew they would fit.

Your usual "..... because I say so" admonition is not convincing.

Why is it that you are consistently unable to provide even a mole hill of evidence for your gods and the hierarchy of preceding designer gods, as opposed to a mountain of evidence?

That's really dishonest.

 

[ding]

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

But you said evolution created the first RNA.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is this a chicken and egg thing?

No. It’s a you were wrong to say evolution created the first replicating living cell thing.

There are only two possibilities; chance or God.

 

[Hollie]

You ID'iot creationist thumpers are also part time comedians, right?

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #23: Jerry Bergman

View attachment 269940

You're really scraping the bottom of the barrel and trolling now haha. That encyclopedia's writer, Fredrik Haraldsen Ryan, is a known creationist troll and wacktard in his own right.

You're getting emotive and lashing out.

Attempting to support your claims by promoting creationist hacks is a desperate tactic.

The so-called. Institute for creation research (they do no research), is a christian madrassah and nothing but charlatans.

 

[alang1216]

Evolution created it. That's at least as good as "God created it" and at least there is a mechanism for evolution, there is none for creationism.

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

No. Chemical chains would have had to fold themselves in the exact right sequence. There was no self replicating until AFTER chance created the first chain that miraculously folded itself in the right sequence.

No. Self-assembly is the process by which an organized structure spontaneously forms from individual components, as a result of specific, local interactions among the components. When the constitutive components are molecules, the process is termed molecular self-assembly. We have examples of molecules capable of self-assembly. The molecules could self-assemble into long chains that when broken would yield two molecules capable of self-assembly. Voila! REPRODUCTION and EVOLUTION. It may have been that simple.

 

[alang1216]

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

But you said evolution created the first RNA.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is this a chicken and egg thing?

No. It’s a you were wrong to say evolution created the first replicating living cell thing.

There are only two possibilities; chance or God.

You have it backwards. Evolution created the first RNA but RNA was not the first replicating life subject to evolution. See here. The first replicating living thing was infinitely simpler than a cell. A cell is the product of billions of years of evolution.

 

[ding]

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

No. Chemical chains would have had to fold themselves in the exact right sequence. There was no self replicating until AFTER chance created the first chain that miraculously folded itself in the right sequence.

No. Self-assembly is the process by which an organized structure spontaneously forms from individual components, as a result of specific, local interactions among the components. When the constitutive components are molecules, the process is termed molecular self-assembly. We have examples of molecules capable of self-assembly. The molecules could self-assemble into long chains that when broken would yield two molecules capable of self-assembly. Voila! REPRODUCTION and EVOLUTION. It may have been that simple.

There are no examples of chemical chains folding themselves into living matter.

Only theories.

 

[ding]

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

But you said evolution created the first RNA.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is this a chicken and egg thing?

No. It’s a you were wrong to say evolution created the first replicating living cell thing.

There are only two possibilities; chance or God.

You have it backwards. Evolution created the first RNA but RNA was not the first replicating life subject to evolution. See here. The first replicating living thing was infinitely simpler than a cell. A cell is the product of billions of years of evolution.

Nope. Biological evolution pertains to living organisms. It doesn’t address the origin of life.

 

[ding]

So it self assembled itself?

Actually yes. If you look at a dividing cell you can watch the process in action.

You clearly don’t understand understand how the first life was assembled through chance if that is how you believe the process worked.

It's not only me: First life: The search for the first replicator

4 BILLION years before present: the surface of a newly formed planet around a medium-sized star is beginning to cool down. It’s a violent place, bombarded by meteorites and riven by volcanic eruptions, with an atmosphere full of toxic gases. But almost as soon as water begins to form pools and oceans on its surface, something extraordinary happens. A molecule, or perhaps a set of molecules, capable of replicating itself arises.

This was the dawn of evolution. Once the first self-replicating entities appeared, natural selection kicked in, favouring any offspring with variations that made them better at replicating themselves. Soon the first simple cells appeared. The rest is prehistory.​

No. Chemical chains would have had to fold themselves in the exact right sequence. There was no self replicating until AFTER chance created the first chain that miraculously folded itself in the right sequence.

No. Self-assembly is the process by which an organized structure spontaneously forms from individual components, as a result of specific, local interactions among the components. When the constitutive components are molecules, the process is termed molecular self-assembly. We have examples of molecules capable of self-assembly. The molecules could self-assemble into long chains that when broken would yield two molecules capable of self-assembly. Voila! REPRODUCTION and EVOLUTION. It may have been that simple.

You keep saying self assembly like it means something. Have you ever watched any YouTube videos on living molecular machines.

It’s an extremely complicated process this self assembly that you keep throwing around. These molecular living machines have the coding for performing the complex set of sequences. The first cell created didn’t. It literally relied upon chance.

 

[james bond]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is this a chicken and egg thing?

We already have the answer for which came first the chicken or the egg.

What I have to come to realize that this is freedom to sin vs God's laws or natural laws thing. God doesn't like sin.

To use an analogy as example, traffic laws are man-made,yet they are based on natural laws. It is impossible to violate the laws of nature without paying the consequences. If one steps off the roof of a relatively tall building, then gravity will get you every time. You could be seriously injured or killed. While drivers may not experience consequences every time they violate traffic laws, but sooner or later the laws of nature will take effect. The odds of you getting a ticket goes up with the number infractions.

Thus, people sin all the time; it is our nature and people want to not be penalized for it. However, they are and just do not want to admit it. Thus, the number of atheists keep going up.