Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Subduction Zone]

So not all the needed amino acids.

Oh, that is what you meant. No I said the opposite of that. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

Not al left handed.

Correct.

So not THE building blocks of life.

Incorrect. Whether left handed or right handed they are the building blocks of life and plenty of them were left handed as well. So yes, they did have left handed amino acids.

Still wrong environment.

No, they probably got it right. The burden of proof for it not being right would fall upon you at this point in time and since you do not understand the concept of science or of evidence I do not think that you could meet that burden.

Still products removed before being destroyed.

Yes, just like in nature. So not a problem.

Still intelligently designed experiment.

So what? It was an "intelligently designed" experiment that mimicked nature. Guess what? That applies to all scientific experiments. You just admitted that the experiment was scientific.

Still no large amino acids strung together.

None were needed. That was not the point of the experiment. Those problems were answered in later research.

Yet still in some text books as the building blocks of life.

That is because that is what they are. No one cares if you do not understand that concept.

So still deception.

And,
Haeckel’s drawings were not accurate, yet his drawings are still used for evolution. Why the fraud?

What fraud? And how were his drawings inaccurate? You need to get that question right.

There does not appear to be any fraud. Your inability to understand something does not make it a fraud.

Nebraska man was not a man. Why the fraud?

There was no fraud there either. Do you even know what a fraud is? Yes, Nebraska Man was not a man. But there was no fraud. I doubt if you understand the term.

 

[Little Dragon]

Thus God created all things.

No evidence for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But you just used circular reasoning unless God created the first living thing. Here is your reasoning.
You wrote "we know that there was a first living creature." So because there are living things, the first living thing must have come into being so that there would be living things.

No. Circular reasoning is what you do. You should have asked how we know that.

Nor do you get to assume that God is the default answer. That is a huge logical fail on your part. Even if the theory of evolution was wrong you would still have to prove that the Bible is right.


You need to work on those basic logic skills.

 

[Little Dragon]

Even if the theory of evolution was wrong you would still have to prove that the Bible is right.

Indeed. I want to see this God creating a new species. That would be good enough for me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No evidence for that.

He probably knows that. I think that most creationists do have at least an instinctual knowledge of what is and what is not evidence. They all seem to be afraid to learn a proper definition of the concept. That is the problem when one lives in fear and only wants to believe.

Creationists all appear to be afraid to learn that they are wrong so they avoid learning. That allows themselves to tell falsehoods to themselves without quite openly lying.

 

[Little Dragon]

He probably knows that. I think that most creationists do have at least an instinctual knowledge of what is and what is not evidence. They all seem to be afraid to learn a proper definition of the concept. That is the problem when one lives in fear and only wants to believe.

Creationists all appear to be afraid to learn that they are wrong so they avoid learning. That allows themselves to tell falsehoods to themselves without quite openly lying.

I normally don't debate with creationists for the same reason I don't debate with flat earthers. There is an emotional investment that is a barrier to critical thought and reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Indeed. I want to see this God creating a new species. That would be good enough for me.

Do you know that one of the tests of biology comes from the laws of phylogeny. A critter (highly technical biological term) cannot have the traits of a species that is out of its clade. For example a horse with bird wings that is bird bones, feathers, and most important DNA, would refute evolution. But should be no problem for an all powerful God. The finding of a Pegasus would refute the theory. Mythological chimeras all would pretty much do that.

 

[metis]

Thus God created all things.

Proof?

 

[Little Dragon]

Proof?

Some value faith above proof, I have no idea why.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Proof?

Read the already proven true Bible.

 

[Pete in Panama]

Read the already proven true Bible.

Earlier Biblical scholars calculated that the earth was some 4K years old. Can u tell me how we got to 6K?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Earlier Biblical scholars calculated that the earth was some 4K years old. Can u tell me how we got to 6K?

I believe that Ussher and Newton got to around 4000 BC, which is about 6000 years ago.
So maybe that is the source of your confusion.

 

[Pete in Panama]

I believe that Ussher and Newton got to around 4000 BC, which is about 6000 years ago.
So maybe that is the source of your confusion.

ah, THAT explains it. THANKS!

Off hand I'm not familiar w/ any scriptural passage that says that God made the earth 4K years before the Christ, tho as we've seen above the fact I'm not familiar w/ something does not mean it doesn't exist. Are u familiar w/ such a passage?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

ah, THAT explains it. THANKS!

Off hand I'm not familiar w/ any scriptural passage that says that God made the earth 4K years before the Christ, tho as we've seen above the fact I'm not familiar w/ something does not mean it doesn't exist. Are u familiar w/ such a passage?

It is a fairly simple calculation. Adam and Eve are created on day 6. Then take all the ages in the genealogies adding the age that a father begat the named son. Then about 2000 years since the resurrection of Christ.

 

[Little Dragon]

Read the already proven true Bible

I see nothing in the universe that proves one passage of the Bible.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I see nothing in the universe that proves one passage of the Bible.

Well time had a beginning. The universe had a beginning.

Just a start and there is much more.

 

[Little Dragon]

Well time had a beginning. The universe had a beginning.

Just a start and there is much more.

It is not certain that the universe is temporally finite. However lets assume it is and that it does have a beginning, however that is not equal to saying, God created the universe. Instead in my view the fact the universe has a beginning is due entirely to naturalistic causation.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

It is not certain that the universe is temporally finite. However lets assume it is and that it does have a beginning, however that is not equal to saying, God created the universe. Instead in my view the fact the universe has a beginning is due entirely naturalistic reasons.

Like what?

Just circular reasoning.

 

[Little Dragon]

Like what?

Just circular reasoning.

Like the metaphysical hypothesis that this universe is one of countless universes, all located in a frame of reference, external to this universe. The multi verse hypothesis. That's my favourite. Universes are spawned and annihilated, over and over again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well time had a beginning. The universe had a beginning.

Just a start and there is much more.

A vague matching of words is not a "proof".