• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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.

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
I am just curious,

What caused the Big Bang?
What was there before the Big Bang?
Where did all the orderly laws of nature come from?
What was the first living creature?
How did it handle osmosis and diffusion?
This is more than just water. There are many other ions whose flow and concentration must be tightly controlled.
What was controlling the gating of these functions and what transport was used?
How did it replenish its chemical energy stores?
How did it replicate?
How did it prevent many copying errors?
How did it assemble all these amino acids into large sequences?
Where did it get its supply of amino acids?
How did it do these things while protecting itself?
Where did it come into being?
When did this occur?
What was the protective layer made of?
About how many atoms was it made of?
How did it repair itself?
Where did it get its supply of amino acids?
How were these moved into the creature?
Could it move around?
I read that Darwin attended a seance? Did he get some of his delusions from devils?
I read that Marx wanted to see the blood of 100s of millions shed and he wanted to dedicated The Communist Manifesto to Darwin.
Now Marx promoted Communism and Socialism which lead to Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.
Did you know that God warned about seances with lying spirits?
Do you think that a Christian should use the best information available to come to the best conclusions or just dismiss the evidence and go with unverified and dubious claims that promote the belief, but not the facts?
How is that consistent with Christian values?
If your sources are not scientific and you knowingly use them as if there were, what is that called?
If you routinely make claims and try to browbeat others into supporting those claims without supporting them yourself, do you think that promotes credibility.
What is pretending to know things you don't?
Does the Bible promote false advertising?
Is it OK to lie for God?
Should arguments and support be logical or based on logical fallacies?

I'm curious too.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
How many more times are you going to repeat that fallacious gish gallop?
Just curious and you should want to answer these. You can be an example of what a true science person is.

What was the first living creature?
How did it handle osmosis and diffusion?
This is more than just water. There are many other ions whose flow and concentration must be tightly controlled.
What was controlling the gating of these functions and what transport was used?
How did it replenish its chemical energy stores?
How did it replicate?
How did it prevent many copying errors?
How did it assemble all these amino acids into large sequences?
Where did it get its supply of amino acids?
How did it do these things while protecting itself?
Where did it come into being?
When did this occur?
What was the protective layer made of?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Well here are the real issues with the mythical first creature.
Yahweh? Yes, we have serious doubts about his mythical creature, yet you insist it's real, but can't offer evidence. You claim it created all things, but can't explain how. Science does explain how the universe started from a singularity, and what has happened ever since for nearly 14 billion years. What do you offer? Two versions of myths that are vague and incorrect.
what was the first living creature?
How did it handle osmosis and diffusion?
This is more than just water. There are many other ions whose flow and concentration must be tightly controlled.
what was controlling the gating of these functions and what transport was used?
How did it replenish its chemical energy stores?
How did it replicate?
How did it prevent many copying errors?
How did it assemble all these amino acids into large sequences?
How did it do these things while protecting itself?

You see why this destroys the myth of abiogenesis.
No we don't. You don't accept science which uses facts and natural processes to explain how all this works. Yet you think we should accept your religious beliefs over science. No one is under the illusion that your beliefs are based on your interpretation of ancient stories in a book. You expect everyone to doubt science with its hundreds of thousands of experts and accept your biased religious beliefs when you lack competency in any area of science, religion, and history. We find it entertaining to see how long you will keep beating your head against the wall.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Yahweh? Yes, we have serious doubts about his mythical creature, yet you insist it's real, but can't offer evidence. You claim it created all things, but can't explain how. Science does explain how the universe started from a singularity, and what has happened ever since for nearly 14 billion years. What do you offer? Two versions of myths that are vague and incorrect.

No we don't. You don't accept science which uses facts and natural processes to explain how all this works. Yet you think we should accept your religious beliefs over science. No one is under the illusion that your beliefs are based on your interpretation of ancient stories in a book. You expect everyone to doubt science with its hundreds of thousands of experts and accept your biased religious beliefs when you lack competency in any area of science, religion, and history. We find it entertaining to see how long you will keep beating your head against the wall.
Satan deceives the whole world shows that you are blind with your so called "experts" in this area of knowledge.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Just curious

I sincerely doubt it.

and you should want to answer these

I feel no need to answer fallacious gish gallops.
Ask serious questions in a serious context if you want serious answers.

You can be an example of what a true science person is.

I am. A "true science person" doesn't waste his time with the willfully ignorant and those who can only argue through fallacious tactics such as gish gallops, assumed conclusions, arguments from ignorance, special pleading, circular reasoning, etc.

At this point, the only thing that a "true science person" can do in response to your willfully ignorant drivel, is pointing out the drivel factor and the willfull ignorance.

What was the first living creature?
How did it handle osmosis and diffusion?
This is more than just water. There are many other ions whose flow and concentration must be tightly controlled.
What was controlling the gating of these functions and what transport was used?
How did it replenish its chemical energy stores?
How did it replicate?
How did it prevent many copying errors?
How did it assemble all these amino acids into large sequences?
Where did it get its supply of amino acids?
How did it do these things while protecting itself?
Where did it come into being?
When did this occur?
What was the protective layer made of?
I already told you a million times: for the sake discussion I will assume all scientific theories are disproven.
This just to speed things up so you can go straight to your fallacious conclusion that doesn't follow.

So, make your fallacious point already so I can point out the fallacy and be done with it.
There's no point in repeating your questions because:
1. we have all already pointed out how ridiculous gish galloping is
2. many of us have already explained to you why many of your questions are invalid
3. many of us, including myself, have already explained to you that to argue your case, you have to actually argue your case and merely attempting to poke holes in perceived rivalling ideas doesn't accomplish that.
4. I have already said multiple times that for the sake of (speeding up) the discussion I will happily assume that all scientific theories are disproven.


So, get straight to the point you are trying to make please.
Don't forget to defend / support it properly.

Aaaaaand... go!



/taps foot while impatiently awaiting the point that likely will never come
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
I sincerely doubt it.



I feel no need to answer fallacious gish gallops.
Ask serious questions in a serious context if you want serious answers.



I am. A "true science person" doesn't waste his time with the willfully ignorant and those who can only argue through fallacious tactics such as gish gallops, assumed conclusions, arguments from ignorance, special pleading, circular reasoning, etc.

At this point, the only thing that a "true science person" can do in response to your willfully ignorant drivel, is pointing out the drivel factor and the willfull ignorance.


I already told you a million times: for the sake discussion I will assume all scientific theories are disproven.
This just to speed things up so you can go straight to your fallacious conclusion that doesn't follow.

So, make your fallacious point already so I can point out the fallacy and be done with it.
There's no point in repeating your questions because:
1. we have all already pointed out how ridiculous gish galloping is
2. many of us have already explained to you why many of your questions are invalid
3. many of us, including myself, have already explained to you that to argue your case, you have to actually argue your case and merely attempting to poke holes in perceived rivalling ideas doesn't accomplish that.
4. I have already said multiple times that for the sake of (speeding up) the discussion I will happily assume that all scientific theories are disproven.


So, get straight to the point you are trying to make please.
Don't forget to defend / support it properly.

Aaaaaand... go!



/taps foot while impatiently awaiting the point that likely will never come
I could not anything of value in your post.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links. All are missing. Why? 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.
I did a quick calculation and I get odds against of 10^10 million to 1. That doe snot include all the impossibilities against it.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Satan deceives the whole world shows that you are blind with your so called "experts" in this area of knowledge.
And these claims of yours is self-serving, because all you do here is make false accusations against educated people, from scientists to we lay people. Many of us have degrees from universities in various sciences, yet your discrimination tries to assume an authority over these qualifications. Yet you think yourself authoritative to dismiss the very science you rely on as a person living in a modern world. You're using electronic devices to post, did they come from religion? No, they came from experts who understand how the natural world functions, and they apply that knowledge successfully.

Science explains why children get cancers, and have defects at birth. It explains how evolution works in a way that is not guided and not moral. It explains how many humans believe in irrational ideas like those you think are true. It explains things via facts, and without the assumption that a God exists. It does so successfully, and your defiance is also explained as the Dunning-Kruger Effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is defined as the tendency of people with low ability in a specific area to give overly positive assessments of this ability.[3][4][5] This is often seen as a cognitive bias, i.e. as a systematic tendency to engage in erroneous forms of thinking and judging.[2][6][7] In the case of the Dunning–Kruger effect, this applies mainly to people with low skill in a specific area trying to evaluate their competence within this area. The systematic error concerns their tendency to greatly overestimate their competence, i.e. to see themselves as more skilled than they are.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

And I pointed out that your God created Satan, and does nothing to prevent Satan from deceiving anyone. Why does your God allow satan to do what he does unless your God is complicit and evil? I asked before, you had no answer. You create a no win scenario for yourself because either way you are in service to Satan.

Satan is the winner, and your God made a huge mistake creating him. Look at how Satan duped Adam and Eve. If God really wanted them to not eat from the Tree of Knowledge, God failed. Then God decided to flood the planet to eliminate sin. Well that didn;t work, God failed yet again. God decide to impregnate a woman to create a son to sacrifice to himself to atone for the sins of mankind (something was was all part of God's design, which wasn't smart) but how well has salvation worked? Terrible, sin is still rampant. God can't fix it? Now fundamentalists keep expecting the Second Coming, for about 2000 years now. What's the problem? God busy elsewhere? God is working with Satan and enjoying watching believers be impatient?

Let's not forget your God designed genes to be cancerous, and when it affects little kids, how moral is that? God couldn't at least wait for cancer to kick in until adulthood when a person can understand what's going on? How hard is that? And you have no answer for whay your God does that to children. No miracles for parents are they agonize over their child's cancer treatment and little hope of survival. Would you do that to anyone? If you had the power to cure a child dying of some disease, wouldn't you do it? But your God refuses. Explain your God.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I could not anything of value in your post.

If evolution is gradual, there should be millions of chains of missing links.
Your poor education is showing. Arguably every organisim is a link in evolution. You are a link between your ancestors and any children you might have. Breeding horses, dogs, cattle, etc. all rely on understanding how traits are passed on. Breeding can also be used to eliminate negative traits. By only breeding animals with the traits you want, and not breeding those with traits you don't want, will eventually "select out" the negative traits. This takes many generations. In nature the selection vrocess depends on the stressors on various traits. Slower animals can eliminate them if the pool of animals favors the fastest if predators chase them. That means eventually this pool of animals will become faster as a norm as more and more fast survivors breed, and fewer slow ones are left. All of these organisms are links to this phenomenon.
All are missing. Why?
Because fossilazation is rare. There have been vastly more organizms that have existed than we have fossils for. But there is enough for us to understand the patterns of evolution over many billions of years of life on this planet.

The real question is how can you have any way to answer these questions when you reject the very means to answer them. You show us contempt when you ask questions of a systematic process that you reject. I question the ethics of that.
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.
Not only do you have contept for science, but you lack any knowledge tyo make these bogus predictions. Dunning-Kruger at work here. You over-estimate your ability. You actually sabotage any credible way to ask these kinds of questions, so you have trapped yourself.

Why are you asking questions that can only be answered by the sciences you reject unless you are being deceptive? Are you being like Satan?
I did a quick calculation and I get odds against of 10^10 million to 1. That doe snot include all the impossibilities against it.
But you show no competency in these calculations, so why bother posting them?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Just a bunch of nothing and some false accusations thrown into the mix.
So you have no rebuttal? No response? Has God abandonded you, and you fail to come back with answers all by yourself?
Some people are deceived by Satan in this area of knowledge.
It looks to be you in these discussions. You are the one offering deceptive claims.
What was the first living thing made of? Was it DNA? Was it RNA? Was it just proteins? Was it some mix?
Why ask when you have contempt for the science that answers these? Only Satan would do this.

Can you prove you are not Satan trying to deceive us?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Again just false assumptions and circular reasoning.
You don't understand what these mean. More Dunning-Kruger.
Where did all matter come from? Where did antimatter?
Why assume it came from anywhere? Just because you believe an ancient myth you think you have absolute knowledge?
Where did all energy come from?
Why assume it came from anywhere?

BTW, matter is energy. If you knew science you wouldn't ask a redundant question.
They all obey the laws of physics .
Why wouldn't it? That is how nature works.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
No science, logic or rational thought in your post.

Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?

Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
No science, logic or rational thought in your post.

Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?

Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?
Why assume any of these came from somewhere and didn't always exist?
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
Actually the earth was created on day 1.
Light was also created on and separated from darkness on day 1.
With the Earth spinning on its axis, the days are 24 hour days.
That is why each day ends with “And the evening and the morning were the first day.” And so on through the 6th day.
Thanks for correcting me on the fact that the earth was created "without form" on the first day, but it was the sun that was created on the fourth day. This is the first 4 days in the King James Version (from here):

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Note that the the earth had grass on the third day but no sun until the fourth day. I'm willing to say that I'm not saying how that's possible. This will probably just increase my very long list of things that I don't understand in the Bible. I am willing to say there are somethings in the Bible that I don't (yet) understand.

I am not willing add made up things like a 24 hour day and the earth's axis on the first day. We need to be humble and accept reality as it is.


Additional notes, three things to add:

one is that there can be grass before the sun because what's been observed is that our sun is a second generation sun, that was formed when some other nearby star did a super nova and deposited here all the iron, carbon, phosphorous argon, etc. from which grass comes. It had to be inbound before the sun was created.

next is the fact that I've got to thank you for the stimulating thread as it's got me thinking in some new areas,

finally is that my take now is that since there can be many possible material explanations and no explicit interpretations it's becoming obvious that literal interpretations are simply not important, that the main point (and the most important thrust) is spiritual, not material.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
No science, logic or rational thought in your post.

Where did all the protons come from? neutrons? photons? neutrinos? All the quarks? Gluons? Muons? All the anti-particles?

Where did the gravitation force come from? The strong force? The weak force? The electromagnetic force?
Once again questions that do not harm evolution. The do not harm abiogenesis, these do not even harm the Big Bang. Nor are they in any way a threat to the age of the universe.

We can demonstrate that the universe is old without knowing the answers to these questions.

If I asked you what color God's underwear is and you could not answer would that refute God?

Your answer should be "No" by the way. In the same sense none of your questions affect the age of the universe.
 

SavedByTheLord

Well-Known Member
Once again questions that do not harm evolution. The do not harm abiogenesis, these do not even harm the Big Bang. Nor are they in any way a threat to the age of the universe.

We can demonstrate that the universe is old without knowing the answers to these questions.

If I asked you what color God's underwear is and you could not answer would that refute God?

Your answer should be "No" by the way. In the same sense none of your questions affect the age of the universe.
Another bad logic fail,
 
Top