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

[SavedByTheLord]

Really? Now I do not believe in reincarnation, but I have never made that mistake.

How is reincarnation verifiably false? Oh wait, because it says so in the Bibbly? That is not a valid refutation.

I did not say you believed in reincarnation. but was responding to someone who mentioned Buddhism which I have shown to be false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did not say you believed in reincarnation. but was responding to someone who mentioned Buddhism which I have shown to be false.

You need to slow down. You read things too quickly and then get everything wrong. Perhaps that is why you always fail in your "logical arguments". I did not say that you said that about me. I did not even imply that you said that about me. Work on your reading skills please.

And no, you did not show Buddhism to be false. I have not seen where you claimed to do so, but I know you and your arguments that I would be willing to put up $1,000 against $1 that you are wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You need to slow down. You read things too quickly and then get everything wrong. Perhaps that is why you always fail in your "logical arguments". I did not say that you said that about me. I did not even imply that you said that about me. Work on your reading skills please.

And no, you did not show Buddhism to be false. I have not seen where you claimed to do so, but I know you and your arguments that I would be willing to put up $1,000 against $1 that you are wrong.

Or you are betting everlasting damnation to win nothing. Pascal's wager.

What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

What was its code? How many amino acids did it have? When did it come into being?

How many kinds of proteins did it have? How many of each?

Where did it come into being? In space? In the atmosphere? In the ocean? In a tide pool?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Ans reincarnation is verifiably false.

Much like Heaven and Hell then? I don't believe in any of these things - but I'll tell you if I'm wrong in a few years perhaps. But, like many religious beliefs, there are some good things from Buddhism, and such perhaps not relying on misinterpreting the Bible or Qur'an, with the latter leading to the silliness in Afghanistan. And in your case, a deluded belief as to an impossibly young age for creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or you are betting everlasting damnation to win nothing. Pascal's wager.

No, Pascal's Wager fails. It is a false dichotomy. It assumes only two possibilities when there are thousands of possibilities. And worse yet I am not even doing that. I did not say that there was no God. You need to remember what is objected to is your version of God. Everyone else here does not believe that God is a liar. You keep claiming that he is. Of course since you do not understand the sciences or the concept of evidence you do not see how you are doing this so you will of course deny that you claim that God is a liar. They only way that you can resolve this is for you to learn what the scientific method is and the concept of evidence.

What was the first living thing made of?

I can answer that. The girl ones were made of sugar and spice and everything nice.

Was it DNA?

The boys were actually DAN.

Was it RNA?

For a lot it was R and R.

Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?

Yes, Chex Mix to be specific.

What was its code?

867-5309

How many amino acids did it have?

234,853. I counted them.

When did it come into being?

Last Thursday.

How many kinds of proteins did it have?

Just one.

How many of each?

Would you believe just two?

Where did it come into being?

New Jersey.

In space?

Probably not.

In the atmosphere?

No, probably not there either..

In the ocean?

Which one?

In a tide pool?

Maybe in the kiddie pool.

Silly and disingenuous questions cannot refute anything. I can ask the same sort of silly and disingenuous questions about God. If you think that your questions refute abiogenesis then my silly questions refute God.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Much like Heaven and Hell then? I don't believe in any of these things - but I'll tell you if I'm wrong in a few years perhaps. But, like many religious beliefs, there are some good things from Buddhism, and such perhaps not relying on misinterpreting the Bible or Qur'an, with the latter leading to the silliness in Afghanistan. And in your case, a deluded belief as to an impossibly young age for creation.

But you have not met my challenge or refuted my irrefutable proofs.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? They should be finding missing links every day. Why not?

There should also be partially developed organs, etc. in all individual creatures right now and that have ever lived. There are not why?

The odds against these 2 things are mind boggling. Just for the missing links, I estimate odds against of about 10^10 million to 1. The odds against the missing partially developed organs and functions is way vaster than that. I estimate odds against of about 10^10 billion billion billion to 1.

No, Pascal's Wager fails. It is a false dichotomy. It assumes only two possibilities when there are thousands of possibilities. And worse yet I am not even doing that. I did not say that there was no God. You need to remember what is objected to is your version of God. Everyone else here does not believe that God is a liar. You keep claiming that he is. Of course since you do not understand the sciences or the concept of evidence you do not see how you are doing this so you will of course deny that you claim that God is a liar. They only way that you can resolve this is for you to learn what the scientific method is and the concept of evidence.


I can answer that. The girl ones were made of sugar and spice and everything nice.


The boys were actually DAN.


For a lot it was R and R.

Yes, Chex Mix to be specific.

867-5309

234,853. I counted them.


Last Thursday.

Just one.

Would you believe just two?


New Jersey.


Probably not.

No, probably not there either..


Which one?

Maybe in the kiddie pool.

Silly and disingenuous questions cannot refute anything. I can ask the same sort of silly and disingenuous questions about God. If you think that your questions refute abiogenesis then my silly questions refute God.

My irrefutable proofs stand and you have yet to meet the challenge.

What was the first living thing?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My irrefutable proofs stand and you have yet to meet the challenge.

What was the first living thing?

No, I have explained to you multiple times how your induction proof failed. You confirmed that I refuted you by repeatedly running away from a reasonable question that if you answered would tell you how you failed.

And you continue to use "logic" that refutes your God. Let me ask this question of you again: If I asked incredibly ignorant questions about your God would that refute it? If not then why do you ask incredibly ignorant questions about the science that you do not understand as if that will refute it?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, I

What was the first living creature? Please give a real answer. Give several of the official answerS if you want and I will get a good laugh and prove they are all false.

Evolution and billions of years have been refuted over and over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the first living creature? Please give a real answer. Give several of the official answerS if you want and I will get a good laugh and prove they are all false.

Evolution and billions of years have been refuted over and over.

If you ask me a real question, one that you can justify, I will answer it.

And when was evolution or billions of years ever refuted? Telescopes show that the universe is billions of years old every day. The age of different parts of the Earth are literally written in stone. It is not that hard to learn how to use the scientific method to read those messages.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If you ask me a real question, one that you can justify, I will answer it.

And when was evolution or billions of years ever refuted? Telescopes show that the universe is billions of years old every day. The age of different parts of the Earth are literally written in stone. It is not that hard to learn how to use the scientific method to read those messages.

So telescopes see an age sign for the universe and the date for the formation of the Earth is actually written on a plaque?

How and when did the eye Evolve?
How could feathers or the eye ever evolved?
Please give Thorough details to support your conjectures,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you ask me a real question, one that you can justify, I will answer it.

And when was evolution or billions of years ever refuted? Telescopes show that the universe is billions of years old every day. The age of different parts of the Earth are literally written in stone. It is not that hard to learn how to use the scientific method to read those messages.

I think what we see is as good as it is ever going to get. Nothing accomplished declared as victory. Nonresponsive to actual questions. Very poor witness in my opinion. None at all as I see it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So telescopes see an age sign for the universe and the date for the formation of the Earth is actually written on a plaque?

Did I say that? Did I imply that?

How and when did the eye Evolve?
How could feathers or the eye ever evolved?
Please give Thorough details to support your conjectures,

Which eye? The eye evolved quite a few times independently.

Variation and natural selection were the major "tools" involved.

No, you do not get to demand anything "thorough" until you demonstrate that you can be rational. That means owning up to your past errors for a start.

 

[Bthoth]

So telescopes see an age sign for the universe and the date for the formation of the Earth is actually written on a plaque?

They use the speed of light as the measuring stick for time/age stamp of telescope data

How and when did the eye Evolve?

To answer that will require you to read a whole bunch of material, but it started with identifying light and dark and developed (evolved) over time from there.

How could feathers or the eye ever evolved?

Feathers..began as.."Invagination occurs during endocytosis and exocytosis when a vesicle forms within the cell and the membrane closes around it.

Please give Thorough details to support your conjectures,

Too much and far to big to be put into simple terms like 'creation' or 'magic'. The idea of just speaking the words will not perfect the comprehension.

I could ask you, how does poop come from mac-n-cheese and there would be too many big words that you could never explain, even if you attended school.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Did I say that? Did I imply that?

Which eye? The eye evolved quite a few times independently.

Variation and natural selection were the major "tools" involved.

No, you do not get to demand anything "thorough" until you demonstrate that you can be rational. That means owning up to your past errors for a start.

I am pretty sure the eye evolved on a Tuesday around 5:30 in the morning. But scientists are still looking into it to see what they can see. Aye!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am pretty sure the eye evolved on a Tuesday around 5:30 in the morning. But scientists are still looking into it to see what they can see. Aye!

If you are a Pastafarian your eye only has to evolve once, you can use an eyepatch for the other one. Arr matey!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

They use the speed of light as the measuring stick for time/age stamp of telescope data

To answer that will require you to read a whole bunch of material, but it started with identifying light and dark and developed (evolved) over time from there.

Feathers..began as.."Invagination occurs during endocytosis and exocytosis when a vesicle forms within the cell and the membrane closes around it.


Too much and far to big to be put into simple terms like 'creation' or 'magic'. The idea of just speaking the words will not perfect the comprehension.

I could ask you, how does poop come from mac-n-cheese and there would be too many big words that you could never explain, even if you attended school.

The speed of light is not known at far distances from the Earth.
Besides God made the light of all stars and galaxies to appear on Earth when He created them.

Feathers provide no advantage unless flight already exists and they are to complicated to evolve from mutations which are always detrimental.
God created everything and will judge all.

 

[F1fan]

The speed of light is not known at far distances from the Earth.
Besides God made the light of all stars and galaxies to appear on Earth when He created them.

Deceptive like Satan.

Feathers provide no advantage unless flight already exists and they are to complicated to evolve from mutations which are always detrimental.

Except warmth. But you don't rely on science.

God created everything and will judge all.

Like cancers that kill children. Seems God is a serial killer, so how can he judge us?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The speed of light is not known at far distances from the Earth.
Besides God made the light of all stars and galaxies to appear on Earth when He created them.

Feathers provide no advantage unless flight already exists and they are to complicated to evolve from mutations which are always detrimental.
God created everything and will judge all.

Actually it is. Various physical constants are tied together. The spectrum of stars tells us of the chemicals in them. You could ask a chemist for more details. Change the speed of light and you would change all sorts of things. It would show up in the spectrum that chemicals absorb.

But for something easier to understand here is an article about a relatively close supernova. It was 168,000 light years away. Due to a rare set of circumstances they were able to measure its distance using triangulation:

Dave Matson Young Earth Additional Topics Supernova » Internet Infidels

A6. The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light When supernova SN1987A exploded, its light soon struck a ring of gas some distance from the star and illuminated it. As viewed from Earth, the ring appeared around the supernova about a year after it exploded. Its angular size combined...

infidels.org

That light took 168,000 years to get here.

As to feathers, they provide warmth. Penguins have feathers. They cannot fly. They provide other benefits too. Ostriches would probably get very cold at night without feathers. But they also use them for display purposes for mating. Peacocks can still fly, but the importance of display for mating purposes is clearly stronger.

And then of course there are many dinosaurs that had feathers. Trust me, a lot of those bad boys could not fly.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Actually it is. Various physical constants are tied together. The spectrum of stars tells us of the chemicals in them. You could ask a chemist for more details. Change the speed of light and you would change all sorts of things. It would show up in the spectrum that chemicals absorb.

But for something easier to understand here is an article about a relatively close supernova. It was 168,000 light years away. Due to a rare set of circumstances they were able to measure its distance using triangulation:

Dave Matson Young Earth Additional Topics Supernova » Internet Infidels

A6. The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light When supernova SN1987A exploded, its light soon struck a ring of gas some distance from the star and illuminated it. As viewed from Earth, the ring appeared around the supernova about a year after it exploded. Its angular size combined...

infidels.org

That light took 168,000 years to get here.

As to feathers, they provide warmth. Penguins have feathers. They cannot fly. They provide other benefits too. Ostriches would probably get very cold at night without feathers. But they also use them for display purposes for mating. Peacocks can still fly, but the importance of display for mating purposes is clearly stronger.

And then of course there are many dinosaurs that had feathers. Trust me, a lot of those bad boys could not fly.

So an argument of ignorance is your theory and here is why.
There is no proof that any evolved feathers.
They were created that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So an argument of ignorance is your theory and here is why.
There is no proof that any evolved feathers.
They were created that way.

No. I am sorry, as hilarious as that is it only demonstrates that once again you have no understanding of logic at all.

Once again, science works on evidence. And like it or not there is clear evidence that feathers evolved. When you are ready to learn you can demand evidence.