Can anyone explain the origin of any gene? Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?

[SavedByTheLord]

No, you clearly can't. And even you know that you can't. If you could you would take up people on their various challenges to you that would require you to learn just a little bit. Instead you run away all of the time.

Anyone who believes the a first living creature can come into being and they evolve into all the living things in the world with just natural processes is not thinking rationally but has bought the religious dogma of evolution and billions of years.

 

[ratiocinator]

...has bought the religious dogma...

 

[Sargonski]

Your answer will of course be ignored

And she or he will no doubt "ask" the same question yet again, at some point in the future when they get desperate

Some people just don't want to know

Unfortunate but true . I have witnessed the same returning to old vomit having ignored / deflected from obvious refutation.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Unfortunate but true . I have witnessed the same returning to old vomit having ignored / deflected from obvious refutation.

BTW the James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.

 

[ratiocinator]

BTW the James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.

No, it hasn't. That would be announced in a proper journal and would make the news.

That would not be announced in an YouTube channel with the disclaimer: "Content on The Ultimate Discovery is for entertainment only. While we aim for accuracy, our information may not be correct, up-to-date or complete. Always consult experts and do your own research. Enjoy, but question and explore further."

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, it hasn't. That would be announced in a proper journal and would make the news.

That would not be announced in an YouTube channel with the disclaimer: "Content on The Ultimate Discovery is for entertainment only. While we aim for accuracy, our information may not be correct, up-to-date or complete. Always consult experts and do your own research. Enjoy, but question and explore further."

It would not.
You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.
There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.

The James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.

Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)

 

[ratiocinator]

It would not.

Of course it would. What are you talking about? Nobody is going to accept it without a peer reviewed publication.

There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.

This is not true.

You are in a religious cult.

Says somebody from the tiny anti-science cult of YECs.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Of course it would. What are you talking about? Nobody is going to accept it without a peer reviewed publication.


This is not true.


Says somebody from the tiny anti-science cult of YECs.

You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.
There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.
Your own guys are abandoning it in droves, but they do not yet have a new theory to replace it.
The Big Bang and the redshift theory came in part from a RCC priest.
The RCC started backing evolution in the 1950s

The James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.

Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)
Nott only that, but the early universe has an abundance of heaven elements, especially nickel (also refutes the Big Bang).

 

[Eddi]

It would not.
You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.
There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.

The James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.

Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)

The James Webb telescope is a scientific instrument run and designed by scientists

If it does reveal anything about the start of the universe whatever it reveals will be scientific, not religious

The Big Bang is a scientific theory

Any theory that replaces it will also be a scientific theory

It won't be "God did it"

But from what others said what you're going on about looks a lot like false news

I'm sure that if the Big Bang theory was ever properly falsified everyone would know, it would make headlines across the world

But oh no, I forgot..... Satan controls the world so he would prevent that from ever happening!

 

[SavedByTheLord]

The James Webb telescope is a scientific instrument run and designed by scientists

If it does reveal anything about the start of the universe whatever it reveals will be scientific, not religious

The Big Bang is a scientific theory

Any theory that replaces it will also be a scientific theory

It won't be "God did it"

But from what others said what you're going on about looks a lot like false news

I'm sure that if the Big Bang theory was ever properly falsified everyone would know, it would make headlines across the world

But oh no, I forgot..... Satan controls the world so he would prevent that from ever happening!

The evidence is not religious
But evolution and billions of years is a false religion.

You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.
There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.
Your own guys are abandoning it in droves, but they do not yet have a new theory to replace it.
The Big Bang and the redshift theory came in part from a RCC priest.
He is called the Father of the Big Bang, and the title of a RCC priest is father.
The RCC started backing evolution in the 1950s

The James Webb Telescope has now produced enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.

Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)
Not only that, but the early universe has an abundance of heavy elements, especially nickel (also refutes the Big Bang).
And there is way more.

Apparently there are all these anomalies that are being discovered.
And anomaly is just evidence which refutes all the false theories of evolution and billions of years.

 

[Eddi]

The evidence is not religious
But evolution and billions of years is a false religion.

You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.
There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.
Your own guys are abandoning it in droves, but they do not yet have a new theory to replace it.
The Big Bang and the redshift theory came in part from a RCC priest.
He is called the Father of the Big Bang, and the title of a RCC priest is father.
The RCC started backing evolution in the 1950s

The James Webb Telescope has now produced enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.

Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)
Not only that, but the early universe has an abundance of heavy elements, especially nickel (also refutes the Big Bang).
And there is way more.

Apparently there are all these anomalies that are being discovered.
And anomaly is just evidence which refutes all the false theories of evolution and billions of years.

Dude, you answered none of what I said you just repeated the post that I replied to with a little bit tagged on to the end that added nothing

Repeating something doesn't make it any more true

Two can play at that game, using the awesome power of ctrl + V:

The James Webb telescope is a scientific instrument run and designed by scientists

If it does reveal anything about the start of the universe whatever it reveals will be scientific, not religious

The Big Bang is a scientific theory

Any theory that replaces it will also be a scientific theory

It won't be "God did it"

But from what others said what you're going on about looks a lot like false news

I'm sure that if the Big Bang theory was ever properly falsified everyone would know, it would make headlines across the world

But oh no, I forgot..... Satan controls the world so he would prevent that from ever happening!

 

[Eddi]

The evidence is not religious
But evolution and billions of years is a false religion.

You evidently don't know what a religion is if you are saying that

And you just admitted that the evidence is not at all religious

Which obviously explains why you ignore it - because it disagrees with your dogma

You just as well admitted that your religion is not based on evidence!

 

[Soandso]

You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.

Is there any evidence that could run contrary to your beliefs or the Bible that you wouldn't dismiss? You use Satan as a scapegoat anytime physical evidence tells a different story than the narrative you cling to, so if not physical evidence then what? There's a difference between sticking to ones convictions and being unreasonable

 

[Nimos]

I did many times.
As usually the theory of evolution is the theory of nothing.
As they have no answer to the origin of anything.

You are referring to abiogenesis, which is still something that haven't been figured out yet.

But how does throwing a creator into the equation help?

Let's say we accepted that it were done by a creator, then what? where would you go from here?

 

[Brian2]

Can anyone explain the origin of any gene? Can anyone explain how all the new genes came into being with evolution?

The only possible answers are educated guesses which many people prefer to believe as if it is science, and to leave God out of the picture altogether.

 

[ratiocinator]

The only possible answers are educated guesses...

Why do people make this sort of claim? It's simply not true. There is solid evidence.

...which many people prefer to believe as if it is science, and to leave God out of the picture altogether.

Many people who accept the evidence also believe in God, so this is also wrong.

 

[Soandso]

The only possible answers are educated guesses which many people prefer to believe as if it is science, and to leave God out of the picture altogether.

How exactly will injecting god into the equation make science produce more accurate answers?

 

[Sargonski]

BTW the James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.

James webb has not produced a single piece of evidence refuting the Big Bang .. you have no idea what you are talking about .. just because some of the Big Bang hypothesis is shown wrong .. does not mean the theory if refuted .. and redshift does not refute anything but your own false beliefs

 

[McBell]

You evidently don't know what a religion is if you are saying that

I strongly suspect that since they can not get religion up to par with science, they have to drag science down in order to equalize them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone who believes the a first living creature can come into being and they evolve into all the living things in the world with just natural processes is not thinking rationally but has bought the religious dogma of evolution and billions of years.

Since the evidence out there supports natural abiogenesis and there is no reliable evidence for a magic poofing I would say that you have it backwards.


Claims like this of yours are how we know that you are not reasoning rationally. Once again, we can help.